Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

175 So. 3d 955

State v. Spurlock

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided September 25, 2015

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2015-09-25

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2018

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“defendant has past experience as an accused in the trial of a criminal prosecution where he was found guilty by a jury”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including 3 Cal. 5th 961 - People v. Daniels, 191 So. 3d 615 - State v. Mahogany

Relies on Gullett v. States · United States of America Ex Rel. John Williams v. Richard Derobertis, et al. · 365 So. 2d 1304 - State v. Phillips

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2015-09-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶111Writ granted; Conviction Reinstated; Case Remanded. It is preferred but not statutorily required for the defendant to waive his right to a jury trial personally. State v. Pierre, 2002-2665 (La.3/28/03), 842 So.2d 321. Defense counsel may waive the right on his client’s behalf, provided that the defendant’s decision to do so was made knowingly and intelligently. Id.The defendant’s jury waiver is deemed knowing and intelligent when he understands “that the choice confronting him is, on the one hand, to be judged by a group of people from the community, and on the other hand, to have his guilt or innocence determined by a judge.” United States ex rel. Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F.2d 1174, 1180 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1072, 104 S.Ct. 982, 79 L.Ed.2d 219 (1984). The defendant’s prior criminal history may be considered in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial. See State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304, 1309 (La.1978).

¶2In these proceedings, the defendant was aware prior to the instant criminal charges of his due process entitlements as they related to a choice to have his guilt or innocence determined by a judge or a jury *956of his peers. Among other criminal matters, the defendant has past experience as an accused in the trial of a criminal prosecution where he was found guilty by a jury. See State v. Spurlock, 539 So.2d 977 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989). In the instant case, the trial record and defense counsel’s hearing testimony, which was not found to lack credibility, reflect defense counsel, after consulting with the defendant, waived the defendant’s right to a jury trial in open court in the presence of the defendant.’ Weeks later, the defendant proceeded to a bench trial without raising an objection to the absence of a jury. Under the given facts, the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial was knowing and intelligent.

¶3Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and reinstate the defendant’s conviction. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and would deny the writ.
/175/so3d/955 · .json · Public domain