California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Fowler, 109 Cal.App.3d 557, 167 Cal.Rptr. 235 (Cal. App. 1980):
2 Having so concluded, we have disposed of the subcontention that the judgment must be reversed due to failure of the trial court to express the standard of proof it employed in determining the admissibility of the incriminating statement. (People v. Jiminez (1978) 21 Cal.3d 595, 609, 147 Cal.Rptr. 172, 580 P.2d 672.)
3 It is the law, however, that if a trial court bases its sentencing decision on the fact that a defendant, although having no substantial defense to present, pleads not guilty and demands a jury trial, thereby inconveniencing the court, such a sentence is invalid since it penalizes a defendant for asserting a right (jury trial) to which he is entitled. (See People v. Morales, supra, 252 Cal.App.2d at pp. 542-546, 60 Cal.Rptr. 671.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.