People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal. 4th 1113

Background

Bruce Lee Blackburn, previously convicted of violent offenses, was committed as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) and faced a petition under Penal Code §2972(a) to extend commitment after parole termination.
At the extension hearing, defense counsel requested a bench trial, prosecutor agreed, the court did not on the record advise Blackburn of his statutory right to a jury trial, and Blackburn did not personally waive that right.
Expert testimony diagnosed Blackburn with schizoaffective disorder and recommended continued treatment; Blackburn presented no defense evidence.
The trial court sustained the petition and extended commitment; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding any advisement omission harmless and permitting counsel to waive the jury trial where defendant was represented.
The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the court must personally advise an MDO of the jury-trial right and obtain a personal waiver before accepting counsel’s waiver.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2972(a) requires the trial court to personally advise the MDO of the right to a jury trial	State (People) argued the statute still requires the court advisement to the person; counsel cannot substitute	Blackburn argued he was not advised personally and thus deprived of statutory protection	Court held the statute unambiguously requires the court to advise the person on the record of the right to a jury trial
Whether §2972(a) requires a personal waiver by the MDO before a bench trial	People argued waiver language contemplates person’s consent and the court must obtain a personal waiver absent incapacity	Blackburn argued counsel’s waiver alone was insufficient	Court held default rule: the court must obtain personal waiver from the MDO; but if substantial evidence raises a reasonable doubt about capacity to waive, counsel may waive
Standard for determining incapacity to waive jury trial	People urged courts must assess capacity; where incapacity shown, counsel controls waiver	Blackburn disputed any showing of incapacity in the record	Court held ‘‘substantial evidence’’ (evidence raising a reasonable doubt about capacity) is required on the record to allow counsel to control waiver
Remedy / harmless-error rule when personal advisement or waiver absent	People argued Watson harmless-error standard should apply to statutory errors	Blackburn argued denial of the statutory jury right is structural and requires automatic reversal	Court held that a complete denial of the statutory personal-waiver requirement (i.e., bench trial without valid personal waiver or record finding of incapacity) is a miscarriage of justice requiring automatic reversal; limited harmlessness exceptions exist where the record affirmatively shows substantial evidence of incapacity or an on-the-record knowing voluntary personal waiver

Key Cases Cited

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (recognizes civil commitment substantially deprives liberty)
In re Gary W., 5 Cal.3d 296 (1971) (right to jury in proceedings leading to confinement is fundamental)
People v. Masterson, 8 Cal.4th 965 (1994) (counsel may waive jury in competency proceedings under specific statutory framework)
People v. Barrett, 54 Cal.4th 1081 (2012) (treatment of jury-waiver/advisement issues in other civil-commitment contexts)
People v. Ernst, 8 Cal.4th 441 (1994) (criminal judgment must be reversed if defendant did not personally waive jury trial)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (general state harmless-error test)
People v. Lightsey, 54 Cal.4th 668 (2012) (certain procedural denials — e.g., complete deprivation of counsel at critical stage — are structural and require automatic reversal)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (some errors defy harmless-error analysis)
People v. Collins, 26 Cal.4th 297 (2001) (denial of jury trial via coerced or invalid waiver may be structural error requiring reversal)