In re A.J. CA1/3

DISCUSSION

1. Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination Appellant contends the condition of probation requiring him to identify the co- participants in the crime violates his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendent. We disagree. As an initial matter, we note that the Attorney General argues that appellant forfeited his claim of error by failing to assert the privilege against self-incrimination at the time the condition was imposed. The Attorney General relies on the principle that the privilege against self-incrimination is not self-executing and generally must be claimed by the party seeking to invoke its protections. (Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420, 427 (Murphy).) For his part, appellant contends the constitutional issue has not been

2 forfeited because it presents a pure question of law that can be easily remedied on appeal by striking or amending the condition of probation. (See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889.) We will assume without deciding that the issue is properly before us on appeal. Turning to the merits of the claim, appellant contends the condition violates his right to remain silent “because it requires him to…