Opinion ID: 2295912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Fairbanks

Text: Fairbanks did not file a written election of a jury or court trial. He was represented at the trial on 18 July 1978 by G. Warren Mix, Esq. When the case was called, Mr. Mix informed the court that he represented the defendant, that we are familiar with each and every count of the indictment, and that [t]he plea will be not guilty to each and every count of said indictment. Counsel continued: Mr. Fairbanks understands what a jury trial is. He understands he has the absolute right to have a jury trial and wishes to waive that right and be tried by the Court here today. Is that correct. Mr. Fairbanks? Fairbanks replied: Yes, sir, it is. As it appeared that the defendant had not been previously arraigned, the court made inquiry of defense counsel and Fairbanks concerning the criminal information. Upon assurance that the defendant understood the charges, trial proceeded. Fairbanks was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and with using a handgun in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced on 16 August 1978. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgments. In finding that Fairbanks' waiver of a jury trial was properly accepted by the judge in accordance with Md. Rule 735, it stated that § d requires only that the court determines, after inquiry ... on the record that the election was knowing, voluntary, and with full knowledge of defendant's rights. It does not require that the inquiry be by the court, only that it be on the record, to substantiate the court's determination. [ Fairbanks v. State, 42 Md. App. at 19.] That, it asserted, is precisely what was done here. Id. It explained: The attorney's inquiry of [Fairbanks] and [Fairbanks'] subsequent affirmation, indicated a voluntary, knowing waiver of jury trial by [Fairbanks], with full knowledge of his right on the record. It was clearly sufficient to justify the court's determination of a knowing and voluntary waiver. [ Id. ] Although Fairbanks did indicate on the record that he understood what a jury trial was and that he understood he had the absolute right to a jury trial and wished to waive it, the record disclosed nothing further. The record is not sufficient to establish that he was aware that before a finding of guilty in a jury trial all 12 jurors must find that [he was] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that in a court trial he could be convicted by the judge alone so finding. Thus, there was not a showing on the record that Fairbanks had the full knowledge of his right to a jury trial contemplated by § d. The judgment of the Court of Special Appeals is reversed and the case remanded to that court with direction to reverse the judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and to remand to that court for a new trial.