What is the test for advising a defendant of their constitutional rights?

⁶ There is nothing in In re Tahl mandating the trial judge be the one to advise the defendant of the applicable constitutional rights. (Mills v. Municipal Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 288, 305, fn. 15, 110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273.) What is required is evidence that the particular right was known to and waived by the defendant. The explanation need not necessarily be by the court, although the waiver must be by the defendant. [Citation.] (Ibid. quoting In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 133, fn. 6, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449.)

⁶ There is nothing in In re Tahl mandating the trial judge be the one to advise the defendant of the applicable constitutional rights. (Mills v. Municipal Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 288, 305, fn. 15, 110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273.) What is required is evidence that the particular right was known to and waived by the defendant. The explanation need not necessarily be by the court, although the waiver must be by the defendant. [Citation.] (Ibid. quoting In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 133, fn. 6, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449.)