Skip to content
Name: People v. Danks
Case #: S032146
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 02/02/2004
Subsequent History: 4/14/04 Rehrg. den. & opn. modified without chg in jmt

(Automatic appeal from death sentence.) Appellant’s comment, “What about going pro per?” was equivocal, born primarily of frustration regarding counsel’s requests for continuances and his desire to avoid a psychiatric examination. Therefore, the comment was insufficient to constitute an articulate and unmistakable invocation of the right to self-representation, and there was no Faretta error. Further, although it was misconduct for a juror to have spoken about the case with her pastor during deliberations, and to have brought in passages from the Bible to share with other jurors, the record does not demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the jurors were influenced by the misconduct to vote for the death penalty.