State v. Chinn
92 So. 3d 324
La.2012Background
- La. Const. art. I, § 17(A) was amended in 2010 to prohibit waivers of the jury trial right within 45 days of trial; waiver must be knowingly and intelligently made and irrevocable in non-capital cases.
- Gerald Chinn was charged with multiple offenses in 2009; status conference 8/29/2011 sought a 10/11/2011 trial (43 days out).
- Defendant conditioned agreement to the 10/11/2011 date on a jury-waiver; district court allowed waiver but set bench trial.
- State objected to waiver inside 45 days; court proceeded with bench trial over the State’s objection.
- Court of Appeal reversed, holding waiver within 45 days was impermissible under §17(A); majority reverses and reinstates district court ruling.
- Court remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is waiver within 45 days prohibited by §17(A) as amended? | Chinn argues waiver inside 45 days is barred by the amendment. | Chinn contends the amendment preserves the right where the court allows waiver. | No automatic veto; context matters; waiver possible if district court allows beyond 45 days. |
| Who controls setting of trial dates—State or district court? | State says prosecution controls scheduling via Art. 61/702. | Court has inherent docket-control power; scheduling must respect §17(A). | District court has inherent control but cannot set within 45 days if waiver is to be preserved. |
| Did legislative history show intent to prevent last-minute waivers rather than eliminate them? | State argues against last-minute waivers. | Legislative history shows balance, not prosecutorial veto power. | Legislative history supports guarding against last-minute waivers, not depriving waiver rights entirely. |
| Should the case be remanded based on unique facts? | Yes; remand to implement proper application of §17(A) given unique facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Radiofone, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 630 So.2d 694 (La. 1994) (official-interpretive approach to constitutional provisions and legislative intent)
- Ocean Energy, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 880 So.2d 1 (La. 2004) (legislative history aids in determining intent of constitutional provisions)
- State v. Johnson, 884 So.2d 568 (La. 2004) (consider legislative history in interpreting amendments)
- State v. Simpson, 551 So.2d 1303 (La. 1989) (court control of trial scheduling vs. prosecutorial motion to set)