Court Opinion

ID: 9885114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:30:23.497478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:44.006861
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Kluczynsici, dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority in their finding that the defendant understanding^ and knowingly waived her right to a jury trial. The United States constitution in the sixth and fourteenth amendments establishes the right of every person to a trial by jury. Section 103 — 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 103 — 6) provides: “Every person accused of an offense shall have the right to a trial by jury unless understandingly waived by defendant in open court.” (Emphasis supplied.) I do not believe that the acquiescence of the defendant during waiver of jury by her attorney was sufficient to demonstrate that she understood the meaning of a jury trial and knowingly waived it. “The trial court is charged with the duty to see that the election of an accused to forego a trial by jury is both expressly and understanding^ made. That duty cannot be perfunctorily discharged.” (People v. Surgeon, 15 Ill.2d 236 at 238.) As suggested in People v. Bell, 104 Ill. App. 2d 479, 482, it takes only “a few moments of a trial judge’s time to directly elicit from a defendant a response indicating that he understands that he is entitled to a jury trial, that he understands what a jury trial is, and whether or not he wishes to be tried by a jury or by the court without a jury.” I believe that this type of affirmative showing in the record should be required to protect the right of the defendant to a jury trial.