Title: Dadouch v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 19S-CR-404
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: July 16, 2019

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 19S-CR-404 
Mohamed M. Dadouch, 
Appellant-Defendant, 
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee-Plaintiff. 
Decided: July 16, 2019 
Appeal from the Knox Superior Court, No. 42D02-1706-CM-477 
The Honorable Ryan S. Johanningsmeier, Judge  
On Petition to Transfer from the Court of Appeals,  
No. 18A-CR-745 
 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jul 16 2019, 10:43 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-404 | July 16, 2019 
Page 2 of 6 
Per Curiam. 
Following a bench trial Mohamed Dadouch was convicted of Class A 
misdemeanor domestic battery. Dadouch claims he did not validly waive 
his right to a jury trial. We agree. 
After Dadouch was charged with a misdemeanor, he appeared with his 
own attorney at an initial hearing on June 21, 2017. Dadouch’s attorney 
represented to the court that he had “gone through” Dadouch’s 
constitutional rights with him. (Tr. p. 5.) The judge asked Dadouch,  
Sir, do you understand that you have various constitutional 
rights? Your attorney said he’s gone over those rights to a trial 
and confront/cross-examine witnesses and your presumption 
of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He says 
he’s covered all of that with you.  
I’ve also been told there are forms over there that talk about 
your rights, and so what he said is instead of me going on 
about all of those rights, he will acknowledge that you 
understand them….  
…. Do you understand all of that?”  
(Id. at 5-6.)  
Dadouch answered, “Yes, I am understanding Your Honor.” (Id. at 6.) 
The court set a trial date of September 11, 2017. Dadouch signed an 
advisement of rights form provided by the court. The form stated, “You 
have the right to have a trial and for that trial to be public, speedy, and by 
jury. This right to a jury can be lost if you do not meet certain deadlines.” 
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 18.) 
On November 21, 2017, the court held a hearing after Dadouch was 
arrested for failing to appear at a pretrial conference. The court noted the 
“bench trial date” had been continued three times and remained set for 
December 18, 2017. (Appellant’s App. Vol. III, p. 2.) Also on November 21, 
2017, Dadouch signed a second advisement of rights form stating, “For a 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-404 | July 16, 2019 
Page 3 of 6 
criminal charge, you have the right to have a trial and for that trial to be 
public, speedy, and by jury. In a misdemeanor case, you must request in 
writing a jury trial.” (Id. at 3.)  
On December 11, 2017, Dadouch filed motions to continue the trial date  
and set the case for a jury trial. The court denied the request for jury trial 
as untimely and set the motion to continue for a hearing on December 18, 
2017.  
At the hearing, Dadouch’s counsel argued that Dadouch had asked 
prior counsel to request a jury trial but no jury demand was filed and 
there may have been a “communication breakdown” due to a “linguistic 
barrier.” (Tr. p. 39.) The court again denied the request for a jury trial as 
untimely but the judge added, “Of course, I’m always open to 
reconsideration if you have some evidence that he strenuously asked 
counsel to advance that motion for him but counsel failed to do so.” (Id. at 
40.) The court granted Dadouch’s request for an interpreter and reset the 
bench trial date.  
At the start of the trial, Dadouch renewed his request for a jury trial. (Id. 
at 63-64.) The court denied the request. At the conclusion of the trial, the 
court found Dadouch guilty of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. 
Dadouch appealed on grounds including that he did not validly waive 
his right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. 
Dadouch v. State, No. 18A-CR-745 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2019).  
The right to a jury trial in a criminal case is a fundamental right 
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution 
and Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution. Poore v. State, 681 
N.E.2d 204, 206 (Ind. 1997). A defendant’s waiver of the right to jury trial 
“must be made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner, with 
sufficient awareness of the surrounding circumstances and the 
consequences.” Doughty v. State, 470 N.E.2d 69, 70 (Ind. 1984). A defendant 
charged with a felony has an automatic right to a jury trial and “is 
presumed not to waive this right unless he affirmatively acts to do so.” 
Poore, 681 N.E.2d at 207. By contrast, a defendant charged with a 
misdemeanor must demand a jury trial and may waive that right by 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-404 | July 16, 2019 
Page 4 of 6 
inaction. The procedure for demanding a jury trial in a misdemeanor case 
is controlled by Indiana Criminal Procedure Rule 22.    
A defendant charged with a misdemeanor may demand trial 
by jury by filing a written demand therefor not later than ten 
(10) days before his first scheduled trial date. The failure of a 
defendant to demand a trial by jury as required by this rule 
shall constitute a waiver by him of trial by jury unless the 
defendant has not had at least fifteen (15) days advance notice 
of his scheduled trial date and of the consequences of his 
failure to demand a trial by jury. 
The trial court shall not grant a demand for a trial by jury filed 
after the time fixed has elapsed except upon the written 
agreement of the state and defendant, which agreement shall 
be filed with the court and made a part of the record. If such 
agreement is filed, then the trial court may, in its discretion, 
grant a trial by jury. 
Ind. Crim. Rule 22. 
In a misdemeanor case, a defendant waives the right to a jury trial 
when the record does not contain a timely request for a jury trial and 
establishes that the defendant: (1) was advised of the right to a jury trial; 
(2) had at least fifteen days advance notice of the trial date; (3) was 
advised of the need to file a written demand for a jury trial at least ten 
days before the first scheduled trial date and that failure to do so will 
result in waiver of the right; and (4) understood the advisements. See 
Hudson v. State, 109 N.E.3d 1061, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018); Duncan v. State, 
975 N.E.2d 838, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012); Eldridge v. State, 627 N.E.2d 844, 
848 (Ind Ct. App. 1984), trans. denied. A defendant may be advised of his 
rights during a hearing held on the record or by a written advisement of 
rights. Hutchins v. State, 493 N.E.2d 444, 445 (Ind. 1986); Duncan, 975 
N.E.2d at 843.  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-404 | July 16, 2019 
Page 5 of 6 
Dadouch signed two advisement of rights forms. The first stated, “You 
have the right to have a trial and for that trial to be public, speedy, and by 
jury. This right to a jury can be lost if you do not meet certain deadlines.” 
The second stated, “For a criminal charge, you have the right to have a 
trial and for that trial to be public, speedy, and by jury. In a misdemeanor 
case, you must request in writing a jury trial.” 
By the time Dadouch signed the second form, the deadline to request a 
jury trial had passed. And regardless, neither form advised Dadouch he 
had to file a demand for a jury trial within ten days before the first 
scheduled trial date or that his failure to file a demand within that period 
would result in the waiver of his right. The first advisement of rights also 
did not inform Dadouch that his demand for a jury trial had to be in 
writing. The transcript of the initial hearing includes no mention of 
Dadouch’s right to a jury trial or the requirements of Criminal Rule 22.  
The Criminal Benchbook provides an advisement of rights dialogue 
that clearly sets forth the Rule requirements that the trial judge must make 
certain the defendant acknowledges and understands. Using the 
Benchbook in this case would have insured that was done. While it is not 
required that trial judges use a written advisement of rights form in 
misdemeanor cases, it is the best practice and we urge all trial judges to 
incorporate an accurate one into their practices. The very best practice in 
these cases is to use both a written advisement of rights form together 
with the dialogue to insure that a reversal does not occur. 
Based on this record, we hold that Dadouch did not validly waive his 
right to a jury trial. We grant transfer, thereby vacating the Court of 
Appeals opinion, see Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A), and reverse Dadouch’s 
conviction. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that the evidence 
was sufficient to support the conviction, the State is free to retry Dadouch.   
All Justices concur. 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-404 | July 16, 2019 
Page 6 of 6 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLA N T 
Mark Small 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  A P P EL LE E  
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Evan Matthew Comer 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana