State v. Chase
| Decision Date | 17 August 1971 |
| Citation | 280 A.2d 550 |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. George CHASE. |
Edward F. Gaulin, Asst. County Atty., Biddeford, Francis Daughan (Law Student), for plaintiff.
Patrick L. Veilleux, Kittery, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
Appellant appeals his conviction of the crime of robbery. But one issue is properly raised. He seeks to raise other issues Appellant, having been indicted for robbery and being indigent, requested in writing that the Court appoint Franklin F. Stearns, Jr., Esq., an able and experienced attorney to serve as his counsel. The requested appointment was made. Appellant subsequently filed with the Court the following document:
which, for reasons which will be made to appear, are not open to him on direct appeal, at least in the circumstances of the instant case.
GEORGE S. CHASE
I, GEORGE S. CHASE, the above named Defendant, charged with the Offense of Robbery now pending on appeal to the March Term of York County Superior Court, Alfred, Maine, do hereby move the Court that I be allowed to Waive my right to Trial by Jury and request Trial by the Court at this present March Term of York County Superior Court in accordance with Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure-Rule 23.
Dated this 11th day of March, 1970.
s/ George S. Chase
DEFENDANT
MOTION GRANTED
s/ William E. McCarthy
JUSTICE, SUPERIOR COURT'
Pursuant to this 'waiver' or 'motion' the case was fully heard by the Court without a jury. The State presented the testimony of complainant who related the events constituting the robbery and identified the appellant, with whom he was well acquainted, as his assailant. The complaining witness was carefully cross-examined at length by defendant's counsel. No evidence was offered on behalf of the defendant but at the request of his counsel, the defendant was instructed by the Court as to his right either to testify or remain silent and the legal consequences of such election. The evidence abundantly supports the judgment of the Court finding defendant guilty as charged.
Judgment was ordered on March 11, 1970. On March 13, 1970 appellant filed notice of appeal. On the same date appellant filed a motion for new trial. This motion was denied by the Court below on March 27, 1970. No new notice of appeal was filed thereafter. We treat the appeal from judgment, however, as raising any issue open to appellant on direct appeal.
The first point of appeal states:
'The Court erred by failing to apply Due Process of Law to Indigent Defendant's waiver of Jury Trial.'
Appellant asserts in effect that Due Process requires that the record show that the Justice below made inquiry in open court and ascertained by direct response from the defendant that his waiver of jury trial was voluntarily and understandingly given. We are aware of no such requirement. M.R.Crim.P., Rule 11 does impose such requirements when a plea of guilty is tendered, but the tendering of such a plea is fraught with far more serious consequences for a defendant than is the more waiver of jury trial. The plea when offered and accepted is itself a conviction and nothing remains for the court to do but give judgment and sentence. The plea waives all defects which are not jurisdictional. Glassman, Maine Practice, Page 102, § 11.1. In contrast, a waiver of trial by jury does no more than vary the mode of fact finding procedure and in many cases may be deemed by a defendant to be the method which he prefers. The only requirements for a valid waiver of jury trial are set forth in M.R.Crim.P., Rule 23(a) in these terms:
In this case a waiver was filed, signed by appellant at a time when he had the benefit of counsel, and was approved by the Court. 1 The requirements of Due Process were thus fully satisfied.
If this appellant desires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Call
...available for consideration only in habeas corpus post conviction proceedings. State v. Greaves, Me., 281 A.2d 445 (1971); State v. Chase, Me., 280 A.2d 550 (1971); State v. Wilbur, Me., 278 A.2d 139 (1971); State v. Pullen, Me., 266 A.2d 222 (1970); State v. Lund, Me., 266 A.2d 869 (1970).......
-
State v. Greaves
...State v. Lund (Me.1970), 266 A.2d 869; State v. Pullen (Me.1970), 266 A.2d 222; State v. Wilbur (Me.1971), 278 A.2d 139; State v. Chase (Me.1971), 280 A.2d 550. On the issue before us this is reason to deny the Because of the serious nature of the charge, however, we have read the complete ......
-
State v. Mank
...State v. Boilard, 359 A.2d at 68 (footnote omitted); see also State v. Allen, 377 A.2d 472, 475-76 & n. 5 (Me.1977); State v. Chase, 280 A.2d 550, 552 (Me.1971). On the record now before us on direct appeal, the entry Judgment affirmed. All concurring. 1 M.R.Crim.P. 23(a) provides:The defen......
-
State v. Smith
...show any compliance with Rule 23(a), M.R.Crim.P., thus demonstrating a non-satisfaction of the requirements of due process. State v. Chase, 280 A.2d 550 (Me.1971). There are two sides to a coin, The trial was on November 12, 1974, counsel having been appointed for the defendant one month pr......