People v. Robinson

I dissent from the reversals of the judgments of conviction as to both Robinson and Drivers. In my view all but one of the asserted errors found by the majority are not errors at all; and that one (which at most is questionable)—i.e., failure of the trial court to instruct on its own motion that Hickman was an accomplice as a matter of law—is clearly not prejudicial (Cal. Const., art. VI, §4%) when analyzed in the light of the record, including the instructions given.

Asserted Error in Allowing Hickman to Make a Judicial Confession of the Crime

The majority hold (ante, pp. 392-394) that the…