Opinion ID: 2071409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jury Trial Waiver Presiding Judge's Discretion

Text: A criminal defendant's right to a trial by jury is guaranteed both by the Delaware and United States Constitutions. Del. Const. art. 1, § 7; U.S. Const. art. 3, § 2; U.S. Const. amend. 6. See Claudio v. State, Del.Supr., 585 A.2d 1278 (1991). The Supreme Court has stated, since trial by jury confers burdens as well as benefits, an accused should be permitted to forego its privileges when his competent judgment counsels him that his interests are safer in the keeping of the judge than of the jury. Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 278, 63 S.Ct. 236, 241, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942). Thus, an accused can waive his or her right to a jury trial. See Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 299, 50 S.Ct. 253, 258, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930) and Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. at 275, 63 S.Ct. at 240. The United States Supreme Court has determined, however, that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to insist on trial by judge alone. Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S.Ct. 783, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965). Both Patton and Adams conditioned a defendant's jury trial waiver on the consent of the prosecution and approv[al] by the responsible judgment of the trial court. Adams, 317 U.S. at 277-78, 63 S.Ct. at 241; Patton, 281 U.S. at 312, 50 S.Ct. at 263. Those two requirements are embodied in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), and Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 23(a). See Polk v. State, Del.Supr., 567 A.2d 1290, 1294 (1989). The record reflects that Deshields expressed his desire for a bench trial without giving any reason. He now contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion, but makes no argument that the denial of a bench trial interfered with his right to a fair trial. Deshields relies on the argument that the threshold at which the trial court abuses its discretion in ordering a jury trial when the State consents would be much lower than when the State objects to such a request. [3] The decision whether to accept or deny the defendant's waiver of a trial by jury is within the discretion of the presiding judge. Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. at 312, 50 S.Ct. at 263; Fetters v. State, Del.Supr., 436 A.2d 796, 799 (1981). The trial court's decision is reviewed by this Court for abuse of discretion. Polk v. State, 567 A.2d at 1295. This Court has held that in exercising his [or her] discretion over a motion to waive a jury trial, a trial judge must `avoid unreasonable or undue departure from that mode of trial [trial by jury], ... and with caution increasing in degree as the offenses dealt with increase in gravity.' Polk v. State, 567 A.2d at 1295 (emphasis deleted) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). The record reflects that the trial judge exercised his discretion in an appropriately cautious manlier given the severity of the penalty Deshields faced as a potential habitual offender.