People v. Badue CA1/3, A162813

Defendant Steve Badue was charged with offenses arising from public intoxication and resisting/assaulting police on September 20, 2020; one officer suffered head injury and defendant spat on an officer.
Badue represented himself at trial and requested a bench (court) trial; the court conducted a brief colloquy in which Badue waived his right to a jury.
The colloquy: court told Badue he had a right to a jury of 12 who would hear the evidence; Badue said he understood and twice called the judge the “judge and jury”; prosecution waived.
After conviction on multiple counts, the court later declared a doubt as to Badue’s competency, ordered psychiatric evaluations, but both examiners found him competent.
Badue was sentenced to a low term of two years for causing serious injury to a peace officer; he appealed sole ly on the ground his jury-trial waiver was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the waiver valid under the totality of the circumstances (Badue initiated waiver, prior criminal history, post-waiver competency evaluations, and existing case law guidance).

Issue	People’s Argument	Badue’s Argument	Held
Whether Badue’s waiver of jury trial was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent	Waiver was valid; colloquy plus totality of circumstances suffice	Waiver invalid because colloquy omitted mechanics (voir dire participation, unanimity), Badue lacked counsel, and competency concerns	Waiver valid under totality of circumstances; colloquy sufficient here

People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (2017) (advisory guidance endorsing a ‘‘robust’’ jury-waiver colloquy and listing suggested topics)
People v. Morelos, 13 Cal.5th 722 (2022) (upheld waiver despite omission of some Sivongxxay elements based on circumstances)
People v. Weaver, 53 Cal.4th 1056 (2012) (recognizes constitutional right to jury trial and that it may be waived)
People v. Collins, 26 Cal.4th 297 (2001) (defines knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver standards)
People v. Blancett, 15 Cal.App.5th 1200 (2017) (contrast: inadequate barebones colloquy for mentally disordered offender)
People v. Jones, 26 Cal.App.5th 420 (2018) (contrast: defendant without criminal-system experience and inadequate advisement)