Doughty v. State
| Decision Date | 08 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 1282S506,1282S506 |
| Citation | 470 N.E.2d 69 |
| Parties | Robert E. DOUGHTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Ind., Joseph Oddo, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of robbery, class A, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-5-1. The case was tried before the court. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of thirty-years.
Appellant raises one issue on appeal: whether the record demonstrates that the trial court failed to elicit a personal waiver, either in writing or in open court, of a jury trial by appellant.
These are the facts pertinent to the appeal. The record contains no written or oral statement by the appellant waiving his right to a jury trial. However, there is a docket entry dated December 21, 1981, which provides:
State of Indiana, by Arnold H. Duemling, Prosecuting Attorney, and the defendant Robert Doughty, in person and by counsel Norbert Wyss, and the said defendant now waives arraignment and pleads Not Guilty to offense of Robbery--Class A felony, as charged in the informartion (sic), and waives right to trial by Jury.
By agreement of said parties, this cause is now by the court set for Trial on February 4, 1982, at 9:00 o'clock A.M.
At trial, appellant did not object to being tried by the court.
I.
The right to trial by jury is fundamental to the American scheme of justice. Duncan v. Louisiana, (1968), 391 U.S. 145, 149, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1447, 20 L.Ed.2d 491. A waiver of this right must be made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner, with sufficient awareness of the surrounding circumstances and the consequences. Perry v. State, (1980), Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 705, 707. The record must reflect that such a waiver was made, so that the question of an effective waiver can be reviewed even though no objection was made at trial. See Cunningham v. State (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 405; Cf. Ford v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 438, 229 N.E.2d 634.
The case at bar is subject to Ind.Code Sec. 35-1-34-1 (Repealed 9-1-82), which states:
This court held that the statute's reference to the defendant's assent must mean an assent by defendant personally, reflected in the record before the trial begins either in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Illinois
...he could confront and cross-examine adversary witness could not be waived by his counsel without defendant's consent); Doughty v. State, 470 N.E.2d 69, 70 (Ind.1984) (record must show "personal communication of the defendant to the court that he chooses to relinquish the right [to a jury tr......
-
State v. Gore
...court that he chooses to relinquish the right [to a jury trial]" [emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted]); Doughty v. State, 470 N.E.2d 69, 70 (Ind. 1984), cited approvingly by Taylor v. Illinois, supra, at 418 n. 24, 108 S.Ct. 646; ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, supra, stan......
-
Horton v. State
...trial ‘by defendant personally, reflected in the record before the trial begins either in writing or in open court,’ ” id. (quoting Doughty, 470 N.E.2d at 70 ). We thus refused to “back away from standard practice” that “Indiana trial courts ha[d] clearly adopted.” Id.Here, as in Kellems, t......
-
State v. Umphenour
...to obtain defendant's personal waiver of right to jury trial by "written instrument" is per se reversible error); Doughty v. State, 470 N.E.2d 69, 70 (Ind. 1984) (failure to obtain defendant's personal waiver of right to jury trial is per se reversible error). But see United States v. Willi......