State v. Bazile, 144 So. 3d 719

Bazile was indicted for second-degree murder and waived a jury trial on Sept. 19, 2011; trial was set for Oct. 3, 2011.
A prior objection to the waiver timing argued it violated La. Const. art. I, § 17(A) and related procedures.
The district court initially ruled § 17(A) unconstitutional under federal due process grounds, prompting appellate review.
Louisiana’s 2010 amendment to § 17(A) restricts jury-waiver timing to no later than 45 days before trial; waiver must be irrevocable.
This Court previously remanded Bazile I to address constitutionality; upon remand, Bazile moved to declare § 17(A) unconstitutional, which the district court granted.
The Supreme Court concluded § 17(A) is constitutional, reversed the district court, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of La. Const. art. I, § 17(A)	Bazile contends § 17(A) violates Sixth/Fourteenth Amendments.	State argues § 17(A) satisfies due process and rational basis.	Constitutional; district court erred in holding § 17(A) unconstitutional.
Procedural objection to raising constitutionality	Bazile properly raised the issue; district court’s sua sponte action improper.	Objection should bar review due to lack of specific pleadings.	Objections without merit; issue adequately raised and reviewable.
Right to trial by judge vs. jury	Defendant has a right to choose bench trial; implicit/state rights support it.	There is no absolute right to a judge-only trial; waiver can be regulated.	No constitutional right to demand trial by judge; waiver is subject to timing rules.
Substantive due process challenge to § 17(A)	Restrictions on waiver infringe liberty interests in trial method.	Regulations are rationally related to legitimate state interests.	No substantive due process violation; rational relationship to state interests.
Procedural due process challenge to notice/waiver	Bazile lacked timely waiver due to discovery status.	Knowledge/intent to waive does not require full discovery or jury pool details.	Procedural due process not violated; waiver timely understood per standards.

State v. Chinn, 92 So.3d 324 (La. 2012) (three-time-period waiver framework after 2010 amendment)
State v. Hatton, 985 So.2d 709 (La. 2008) (three-step unconstitutionality pleading requirement)
State v. Schoening, 770 So.2d 762 (La. 2000) (procedural posture on constitutional challenges)
Bazile I, 85 So.3d 1 (La. 2012) (remand due to improper initial consideration of § 17(A))
State v. Griffin, 495 So.2d 1306 (La. 1986) (legitimate state interests; rational basis review standard)
State v. Jackson, 450 So.2d 621 (La. 1984) (no constitutional right not to be tried by jury)
Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965) (implicit right to waive jury trial; government/court consent implications)
Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930) (waiver of right to jury requires government and court consent)
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942) (implicit right to waive jury trial with conditions)
United States v. Kelley, 712 F.2d 884 (1st Cir. 1983) (knowing waiver focus on constitutional rights)
Roussel, 381 So.2d 796 (La. 1980) (Brady duty and fair trial scope)
Hunter, 250 La. 295 (La. 1967) (disclosure rules; fair trial emphasis)
Golston, 67 So.3d 452 (La. 2011) (procedural due process notice and hearing requirements)
Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (protected interest analysis for substantive due process)