Court Opinion

ID: 9717524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:05:07.880214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.696240
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BILANDIC, also specially concurring: I join in the majority’s holding that defendant’s jury waiver was not valid and a new trial is warranted. The majority correctly concludes that section 103 — 6 requires, at a minimum, that the defendant be present in open court when the jury waiver is discussed. Although adoption of this rule requires a new trial in this case, I believe that, in the long run, this rule will reduce the litigation of jury waiver issues in the reviewing courts and the number of reversals necessitated by invalid waivers. In arguing for reversal of the appellate court, the State urges us to find that, based on the circumstances of this case, defendant knowingly and understanding^ waived his right to a trial by jury. The State cannot avoid section 103 — 6’s explicit requirement that the defendant waive a jury “in open court.” The State therefore asserts that the trial judge’s mention of a “bench trial” in defendant’s presence was sufficient to constitute defendant’s waiver of a jury “in open court,” when considered in light of the other circumstances present in this case. In essence, the State asks us to define the “in open court” requirement so broadly that it may be gleaned from any number of circumstances. The problem with the State’s approach is that it gives no clear guidance to the trial courts on this matter. Exactly what is required in any given case to comply with section 103 — 6 is not defined. Without a clear requirement for the trial courts, however, reviewing courts would be faced with numerous assertions of invalid waivers. In contrast, the simple requirement which the majority has adopted here — that the defendant, at a minimum, be present in open court when the jury waiver is discussed — provides the trial courts with a clearly defined minimum standard for this situation. That requirement was not satisfied in this case, and a new trial is therefore warranted. In light of the majority’s holding, however, I trust that this situation will not arise with any frequency in the future and judicial economy will, in the end, be served. This court has previously acknowledged the efficacy of a clear rule on this issue: “ ‘It takes but 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. This simple procedure incorporated in the record will reduce the countless contentions raised in the reviewing courts about jury waivers.’ ” People v. Chitwood, 67 Ill. 2d 443, 448-49 (1977), quoting People v. Bell, 104 Ill. App. 2d 479, 482 (1969).