618 S.W.3d 361
Tex. Crim. App.2021Background
- Jacob Straughan was charged with misdemeanor evading arrest and assault; he sought to waive a jury and proceed to a bench trial.
- Article 1.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the State’s consent for a defendant to waive a jury. The State refused to consent.
- Straughan argued the Texas Supreme Court’s COVID-19 Emergency Order authorized the trial court to modify or suspend procedures and thus to hold a bench trial over the State’s objection.
- The trial court granted the bench-trial request; the State sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals, which denied relief, interpreting the Emergency Order broadly.
- The State petitioned this Court for mandamus; this Court reviewed de novo and concluded the Emergency Order did not authorize a trial court to override the statutory consent requirement. The Court conditionally granted mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Straughan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court’s Emergency Order authorized a trial court to conduct a bench trial over the State’s statutory refusal to consent | Emergency Order does not permit courts to abrogate substantive rights or enlarge court authority; it governs procedures/deadlines only | Emergency Order allows modification/suspension of "deadlines and procedures," so a bench trial is permissible without State consent to protect public health | Emergency Order does not confer authority to override Article 1.13; trial court lacked power to hold bench trial absent State consent |
| Whether mandamus was appropriate to compel the trial court to follow Article 1.13 | Mandamus is appropriate because the State has no adequate remedy and the duty to refuse a bench trial without its consent is ministerial | Argued that Emergency Order created discretion such that duty was not ministerial | Duty was ministerial because the statute and precedent unambiguously prohibit bench trials without State consent; mandamus conditionally granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re State ex rel. Ogg, 610 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (court of appeals’ decision interpreting Emergency Order broadly)
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus review de novo standard)
- In re Yeager, 601 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (definition of ministerial duty for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (mandamus granted where bench trial was conducted without State consent)
- Ex parte George, 913 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (judgment from bench trial without State consent is a nullity for double-jeopardy purposes)
- Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (distinguishing statutory jury-privilege rights from constitutional jury rights)
- Diruzzo v. State, 581 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (indictment alleging misdemeanor cannot confer felony jurisdiction)