Case Name: PEOPLE v. BRAXTON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1979-08-20
Citations: 91 Mich. App. 689
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-2343
Parties: PEOPLE v BRAXTON
Judges: Before: N. J. Kaufman, P. J., and T. M. Burns and Bashara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 91
Pages: 689–692

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v BRAXTON
Docket No. 77-2343.
Submitted January 5, 1979, at Detroit.
Decided August 20, 1979.
Robert Braxton was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in a bench trial in Detroit Recorder’s Court, Samuel H. Olsen, J. More than a month before trial, defendant and his attorney executed before a court clerk the form required for waiving a jury trial. Immediately prior to defendant’s trial, the judge indicated, in the presence of defendant and his attorney, that the defendant had executed a written waiver of trial by jury. No comments or objections were moved by defendant or his counsel. Defendant appeals and argues that there was no knowing waiver of his right to a jury trial. Held:
The written waiver of a jury trial executed by defendant and his attorney before the court clerk, when coupled with the trial court’s reference to that waiver form made in the presence of defendant and his counsel immediately prior to trial, satisfies the statutory requirement that the waiver be made in open court.
Affirmed.
T. M. Burns, J., dissented. He would hold that the statutory requirements for an effective waiver of the right to a jury trial were not satisfied. Neither the waiver form itself, nor the trial court’s reference to that form, establishes that the defendant waived his right to a jury trial in open court as required by statute. He would reverse and remand for new trial.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Right to Jury Trial — Waiver — Written Waiver — Open Court — Statutes.
A written waiver of a jury trial executed by defendant, with his attorney present, before a court clerk, when coupled with reference to that waiver form made by the trial court in the presence of defendant and his counsel immediately prior to trial, is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that the waiver of the right to a jury trial shall be in open court after an opportunity to consult with counsel (MCL 763.3; MSA 28.856).
References for Points in Headnotes
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 219.
47 Am Jur 2d, Jury §§ 83, 84.
47 Am Jur 2d, Jury §§ 83, 84.
Dissent by T. M. Burns, J.
2. Criminal Law — Right to Jury Trial — Waiver — Written Waiver — Open Court — Oral Waiver — Statutes.
The statutory requirement that a waiver of the right to a jury trial must be in open court requires proof, other than the written waiver itself, that the waiver occurred in open court (MCL 763.3; MSA 28.856).
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Victor M. Norris, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
John C. Mouradian, for defendant on appeal.
Before: N. J. Kaufman, P. J., and T. M. Burns and Bashara, JJ.

Opinion:
Bashara, J.
The majority of this panel adopts the factual determination set forth by Judge Burns. However, we reach a different conclusion and would affirm the conviction.
MCL 763.3; MSA 28.856 provides that the "waiver of trial by jury must be made in open court after the said defendant has been arraigned and has had opportunity to consult with counsel".
A review of the record reveals that defendant was accompanied by counsel when he signed the proper waiver form in open court before a clerk of the court.
Immediately prior to trial, the judge indicated on the record that the defendant had executed the waiver. At the time of that pronouncement, defendant and his attorney were in the courtroom.
The cases cited by the dissent can be distinguished. In People v Edwards, 51 Mich App 403; 214 NW2d 909 (1974), and People v Polhamus, 59 Mich App 609; 230 NW2d 171 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 819 (1975), no written waiver was made a part of the record. In People v Rimmer, 59 Mich App 645; 230 NW2d 170 (1975), and People v Word, 67 Mich App 663; 242 NW2d 471 (1976), no oral acknowledgment was made in open court.
Rather, we rely on our majority opinion in People v McKaig, 89 Mich App 746; 282 NW2d 209 (1979), People v Little, 87 Mich App 50; 273 NW2d 583 (1978), and People v Slappy, 59 Mich App 525; 230 NW2d 4 (1975).
Affirmed.
N. J. Kaufman, P.J., concurred.