State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little, 851 N.W.2d 878

Little was charged with multiple CS crimes; he waived jury trial on the initial charges but the State later amended to add first-degree CS without a personal waiver for that charge; bench trial proceeded; after trial he was convicted on all counts and sentenced; the Court of Appeals affirmed the first-degree CS conviction; the Supreme Court reversed, vacated the first-degree CS conviction, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
The January 20, 2011 waiver colloquy covered only the then-charged offenses; the February 1, 2011 amended complaint added first-degree CS without a renewed personal waiver.
Little never received the amended complaint, did not personally waive on the amended charge at February 2, 2011, and did not know of the amendment during trial; the district court conducted the bench trial with the court as fact-finder.
The Court held that when the State amends the complaint to add an offense after a jury-trial waiver, the district court must obtain a renewed personal waiver for the new charge.
The Court concluded the district court’s failure to obtain a personal waiver on the amended charge was plain error that affected Little’s substantial rights and warranted reversal and remand for new proceedings consistent with the opinion.
The concurrence (Stras, J.) would not remand for a new trial, instead finding no demonstrated prejudice and affirming the appellate decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether renewed waiver required after amendments	Little argues amendment requires renewed personal waiver	State argues waiver of basic jury-trial components suffices	Yes, renewal required for amended charge
Validity of earlier waiver on amended charge	The January 20 waiver did not cover the amended charge	Record indicated a waiver existed; not personal for amended charge	District court erred in not securing a personal waiver for the amended charge
Standard of review for unpreserved error	Plain-error review should apply given no objection	Precedent allows plain-error review; severity contested	Plain-error review applied; prejudice shown; reversal warranted
Relief appropriate for error	New trial necessary to preserve integrity	Remand unnecessary; prejudice not shown	New trial on first-degree CS required; remand ordered

McGeagh v. Nordberg, 53 Minn. 235 (Minn. 1893) (waiver scope limited to issues then formed, not all possible later pleadings)
Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 (Minn. 1899) (waivers strictly construed, not extended by implication)
State v. Dettman, 719 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. 2006) (jury-trial waiver must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
State v. Ross, 472 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 1991) (waiver considerations include defendant's understanding of trial consequences)
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (plain-error analysis for substantial rights in unpreserved errors)
State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. 2011) (precedent for plain-error review of waiver on a single element, not structural error)
State v. Osborne, 715 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 2006) (intervening change in law can justify harmless-error treatment in some cases)
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (reasonable probability defendant would not have waived absent error (plea context analog))