Barnum

—We granted review to consider a rule, rooted in two Court of Appeal decisions—Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146 [ 314 P.2d 164 ] (Killpatrick), and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 487 ] (Kramer)—declaring that a trial court is required to advise a defendant who represents himself or herself of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination before such a defendant is called by the People as a witness in their case-in-chief or testifies in his or her own defense.

The Court of Appeal below rejected the Killpatrick-Kramer rule, reasoning that it was not well founded, and in any event was not viable after Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [ 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ] (Faretta), which held that under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution a defendant not only has a right to the assistance of counsel, but also the right to represent himself or herself.

We granted review to determine whether the Killpatrick-Kramer rule is valid and, if so, what standard of prejudice applies when it is violated.

As we shall explain, we conclude that the Killpatrick-Kramer rule has not been undermined by Faretta .…