Conservatorship of Joanne R.
B310906
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 17, 2021Background
- Joanne R. was placed under an LPS conservatorship as gravely disabled in 2018; conservatorship annually renews and Stusser sought reappointment in Nov. 2020.
- A February 4, 2021 videoconference court trial was set after a December 2020 hearing; the court cited pandemic-related calendar issues as good cause for continuances.
- At the Feb. 4 hearing (Joanne attended by phone) the court explained court trial vs. jury trial and stated a jury trial could not be scheduled until November 2021; Joanne said she preferred a jury but did not want to wait and then waived a jury trial.
- The court trial proceeded immediately; the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Joanne was gravely disabled and reappointed Stusser for another year.
- Joanne appealed, arguing the court’s jury-trial advisement was inadequate and that advising her of the nine-month wait improperly induced her to waive her jury right.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, but cautioned that long delays for LPS jury trials raise serious due process concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s personal jury-waiver advisement was legally adequate | Joanne: court failed to inform her she could participate in jury selection and otherwise omitted required explanation, so waiver invalid | Stusser: advisement conveyed the essence of the right (12 jurors, unanimity, judge vs jury) and totality of circumstances makes waiver valid | Waiver valid under totality of circumstances; omission of participation-in-selection advisement did not invalidate waiver |
| Whether advising Joanne she could have a court trial that day or wait nine months for a jury trial coerced or induced an involuntary waiver | Joanne: statement created improper coercion/inducement given the lengthy delay | Stusser: court merely informed of scheduling reality, did not promise reward or advantage for waiver | No improper inducement; waiver was voluntary though delay is troubling |
| Whether pandemic-caused delay violated statutory trial-timing requirements or required reversal per precedent | Joanne: delay effectively denied timely exercise of jury right | Stusser: pandemic justified continuances; no statutory waiver defect shown | Court declined to find statutory violation here but warned long delays can create constitutional due process problems |
| Whether any error in advisement requires automatic reversal or is subject to harmless-error analysis | Joanne: defective advisement requires reversal per cases recognizing mandatory personal advisement | Stusser: factual circumstances render any omission harmless | Court applied totality test from criminal-law jury-waiver precedent and upheld the waiver (no automatic reversal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Jose B., 50 Cal.App.5th 963 (expressing concern about delayed LPS trials)
- People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (totality-of-circumstances standard for knowing and intelligent jury-waiver colloquy)
- People v. Collins, 26 Cal.4th 297 (trial court may not induce waiver by offering reward/benefit)
- Conservatorship of Heather W., 245 Cal.App.4th 378 (trial court must personally obtain waiver in LPS context)
- People v. Weaver, 53 Cal.4th 1056 (absence of advisement on jury-selection participation not always fatal)
- People v. Daniels, 3 Cal.5th 961 (importance of conveying the essence of the jury right)
- Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (right to jury trial on establishment and renewal of conservatorship)