Waiver of jury trial

People v. Blackburn, 354 P.3d 268 (2015) & People v. Tran, 354 P.3d 148 (2015)

Under the California NGI and the MDO commitment statutes, the trial court must advise the defendant personally of his or her right to a jury trial and must obtain a waiver of that right from the defendant unless there is substantial evidence that the defendant lacks the capacity to waive right

Background: In the People v. Blackburn the Supreme Court of California addressed the meaning of provisions in the statutory scheme for extending the commitment of a mentally disordered offender (MDO) that require the trial court to "advise the person of his or her right to be represented by an attorney and of the right to a jury trial" and to hold a jury trial "unless waived by both the person and the district attorney." (Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (a)). In the companion case, People v. Tran, the Court addressed nearly identical language in the statutory scheme for extending the involuntary commitment of a person originally committed after pleading not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to a criminal offense.

Holdings: Under both the NGI statute and the MDO statute, the trial court must advise the defendant personally of his or her right to a jury trial and, before holding a bench trial, must obtain a waiver of that right from the defendant unless the court finds substantial evidence that the defendant lacks the capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, in which case defense counsel may control the waiver decision.

Notable Points:

The jury trial guarantee: In MDO and NGI commitment proceedings, as in a criminal trial, the jury guarantee is a basic protection the precise effects of which are unmeasurable and the denial of which defies analysis by harmless-error standards. Thus, the total deprivation of a jury trial without a valid waiver in such proceedings requires automatic reversal.

Lack of explicit findings regarding mental capacity: Acceptance by the trial court of counsel's waiver of an MDO or NGI defendant’s right to a jury trial without an explicit finding of substantial evidence that the offender lacked the capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver may be deemed harmless if the record affirmatively shows that there was substantial evidence that the offender lacked that capacity at the time of counsel's waiver. The requirement of an affirmative showing means that no valid waiver may be presumed from a silent record.

Found in DMHL Volume 34 Issue 3