Court Opinion

ID: 9732070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:06:37.51134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.924137
License: Public Domain

CADY, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result reached by the majority but disagree with that portion of the decision that overrules Lawrence and interprets rule of criminal procedure 2.17(1) to require an in-court colloquy in order for a defendant to waive a jury trial in a criminal case.
Our standard for overruling our precedents is not easily satisfied. We do so “only for the most cogent reasons,” and only when error is manifest. Stuart, 247 Iowa at 714, 74 N.W.2d at 215-16; accord Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306. The concept of stare decisis is an important bedrock principle in our system of justice and allegiance to precedent is a significant factor in the enduring strength of our judicial system.
My view of the waiver rule is based on my respect for the doctrine of stare decisis and the constitutional roles of the legislature and this court. The legislature has enacted a rule governing waiver of jury trials in a criminal case pursuant to its constitutional role, and we have previously interpreted that rule pursuant to our constitutional role. Although the rulemaking authority now largely rests with this court, the rule at issue was enacted by the legislature and we are obligated to interpret it pursuant to their original intent. See Iowa Code §§ 602.4201, 602.4202.
A brief review of the history of rule 2.17(1) reveals the improvident action of the majority in overruling Lawrence. This history is important because it helps explain the legislative development of rule 2.17(1). At the time our legislature originally enacted rule 2.17(1) in 1976, courts around the nation had begun debating the type of procedure necessary for a defendant to waive the right to a jury trial in a criminal case. The debate focused on whether the waiver should be made in writing or whether an in-court colloquy was needed. Ultimately, what emerged from this debate was that courts preferred an in-court colloquy, but such a strict procedure was not constitutionally required. See Martin, 704 F.2d at 274-75, 2 Wright § 372, at 453-54. We have taken this same position. See Stallings, 658 N.W.2d at 109-11.
As originally enacted, rule 2.17(1) required the waiver to be “reported ... in *817open court.” Thus, our legislature clearly chose the strict in-court colloquy standard initially. Yet, in 1981 our legislature changed the rule to require the waiver to be “in writing and on the record.” In light of the historical background showing there was a constitutionally permissible choice between the two standards, it is most logical to believe our legislature decided to reconsider the in-court colloquy standard it initially adopted and adopt the lesser writing standard. I find no support for the idea formulated by the majority that the legislature intended to adopt both standards by adding the specific “in writing” requirement and replacing the clear language of the original rule with a generic phrase that, under the majority’s analysis, did not truly change the rule’s original meaning.
Moreover, we decided Lawrence three years after the 1981 legislative change to the rule. In Lawrence, we interpreted the generic phrase “on the record” to mean in the record, and held that the rule only required the waiver to be in writing. Significantly, the rule has not been amended since the Laurrence decision by this court or the legislature. This inaction must be viewed as a sign that Lawrence is the accepted position today. See State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208, 214 (Iowa 1994). If we want to change our longstanding interpretation of the rule originally enacted by the legislature, we should do so by changing the rule itself pursuant to our rulemaking powers, not by overruling our established precedent.
Ultimately, nothing has changed since Lawrence to justify the decision of the majority, and we should not assume that we know more today about the legislative intent behind the language of rule 2.17(1), nineteen years after we decided Lawrence. Instead, we should make our decision today based on those fundamental principles that guide all judicial decision-making, and strike out in a different direction from established precedent “only for the most cogent reasons.” Stuart, 247 Iowa at 714, 74 N.W.2d at 215-16. No such reasons exist to support the decision of the majority in this case.