nd had declined. On appeal, the California Supreme Court upheld his conviction and stated at 378-379:
"We cannot accept the suggestion of certain commentators . . . that every minor is incompetent as a matter of law to waive his constitutional rights to remain silent and to an attorney unless the waiver is consented to by an attorney or by a parent or guardian who has himself been advised of the minor's rights."
"We recognize that in a number of respects minors enjoy a privileged status in our law. One of the primary concerns
of the Legislature has been to protect minors from suffering
unfair treatment in their dealings with adults simply by
reason of their immaturity." However, the Court went on to
state at 381 that "with respect to tortious or criminal acts of minors," the rights of minors had to be balanced (at 379)
against "society's interest in self-preservation," and (at
381) "the law extends no blanket presumption of incapacity."
The Court said that the validity of a defendant's waiver had
...