Court Opinion

ID: 9543142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:42:34.204228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:46.122309
License: Public Domain

OTIS, Justice
(dissenting).
Rule 26.01, subd. l(2)(b) of our rules of criminal procedure, provides ,that a defendant shall be permitted to waive a jury trial whenever it is determined that he does so knowingly and voluntarily, and there is reason to believe that, as a result of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, the waiver is required to assure the likelihood of a fair trial.
The majority shifts the burden upon defendant to show that the court’s refusal to permit a waiver was unreasonable, which I find to be at odds with fundamental fairness. In my opinion it is the duty of the trial court to accept the waiver unless the court, in exercising its discretion, spells out with some specificity valid reasons why the interests of justice require a jury trial.
Here the only justification advanced by the court was first, that because mental illness was a defense, there is some question in the court’s mind as to whether the defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive a jury; and second, that because the defendant had been “in and out of court for a matter of a year and a half or two years” all of the judges felt they knew him; and third, that mental illness was a “crucial issue,” a “very important factor,” which the court had “a preference” be decided by a jury rather than by the court.
*908It seems logical to assume that if defendant was incompetent to waive a jury, he was likewise incompetent to defend himself. Nevertheless on February 13, 1978, the court found him competent to proceed and on November 20, 1978, the trial began.
As to the court’s intimating that the pretrial hearings may have adversely influenced them to the extent that it would be inappropriate for them to decide the case, such exposure if prejudicial should also have disqualified those judges from presiding at the trial by jury. “[Wjhatever considerations would make it improper for a judge to try the case without a jury would also make it improper for him to try the case with a jury.” Gaulke v. State, 289 Minn. 354, 361, 184 N.W.2d 599, 603 (1971).
Finally, the fact that mental illness was not only a crucial issue, but for practical purposes the only issue, was a compelling reason why the court should have honored the request to waive a jury, particularly where the state had no objection. Yet the court assigned as its reason, without further explication, only a “preference” to have a jury decide that issue.1
What constitutes “mental illness” as a defense in a criminal case is one of the most complex, difficult, and troublesome questions of law and fact which the legislature and the courts must confront. The bench and bar have for years been struggling with the problem of defining a comprehensible and rational rule for the guidance of fact-finders in such cases. Determining the criminal responsibility of psychopathic offenders often draws on the experience and training of the medical profession, the legal profession, sociologists, and theologians. It is an inexact science to say the least. To expect twelve laypersons, without any particular exposure to these disciplines to better understand, weigh, and assess conflicting testimony of so-called experts is to blind ourselves to reality. While members of the judiciary profess no prescience or infallibility in these fields, it is only reasonable to assume that trial judges by education and experience are more likely to have an understanding and grasp of what is relevant than do laypersons.
The defendant in this ease was a seriously irrational mental patient, dangerous to himself and to society. Twice he had attempted suicide. He was paranoid and schizophrenic, believing his custodians were bent on murdering him by torture. When he escaped the Anoka State Hospital, he broke into the nearby home of a slightly-built 68-year-old widow whom he apparently beat to death with a metal pipe in a bloody and brutal manner.
Public outrage was such that one thousand local residents signed a petition to have the Anoka State Hospital closed. Although venue was changed to Washington County, it is not correct to say there was no publicity beyond Anoka County. There was considerable coverage of the details of the crime in widely circulated metropolitan papers.
This is precisely the kind of case where judges should do their duty “unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism” as the judicial canons require,2 absent “substantial reasons why the defendant should not be allowed to waive a jury trial.” State v. Kilburn, 304 Minn. 217, 227, 231 N.W.2d 61, 66 (1975) (MacLaughlin, J. concurring).
In cases which have received much publicity and have aroused the community, * * * the need for trial before an impartial judge is especially great.
ABA Project on Minimum Standards For Criminal Justice, Standards Relating To Trial By Jury § 1.2(a)(3)(d), at 36.
Where, as here, the trial court has failed to suggest any substantial ground for denying defendant’s request to waive a jury, the interests of justice compel a new trial to vindicate his rights. 60 Minn.L.Rev. 759 (1976).

. 160 Minn.L.Rev. 759, 768 (1976).

. Minn. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(1).