State v. Bazile, 85 So. 3d 1

Bazile, indicted for second degree murder, faced an October 3, 2011 trial date.
On September 19, 2011, Bazile indicated a wish to waive the jury trial, but the State argued the waiver was less than 45 days before trial and thus inapplicable.
The district court doubted whether the U.S. Constitution allows denying a jury trial on the day set for trial, but did not resolve the issue on the record.
At trial, discovery issues led to a bench trial being reset to October 11, 2011; the defense proposed continuing to a date in November to create more than 45 days from Bazile’s waiver request.
The State argued a continuance does not extend the 45-day window once the initial period has run, effectively making the trial a jury trial.
The district court concluded that the 45-day requirement could be overridden, found Article I, § 17(A) unconstitutional, and did not enforce it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could sua sponte declare §17(A) unconstitutional.	Bazile did not raise the issue; court should enforce law unless properly challenged.	N/A in this context; the district court addressed constitutionality on its own.	Reversed; constitutionality not properly raised; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Greater New Orleans Expressway Com’n v. Olivier, 892 So.2d 570 (La. 2005) (judges cannot raise constitutional challenges lacking standing unless essential to decision)
Ring v. State, DOTD, 835 So.2d 423 (La. 2003) (judicial role to enforce presumptively constitutional acts; avoid sua sponte constitutional rulings)
State v. Mercadel, 874 So.2d 829 (La. 2004) (requires proper posture and standing to decide constitutional issues)
Schoening, 770 So.2d 762 (La. 2000) (unconstitutionality must be specially pleaded with grounds; procedural posture matters)