State v. Gomez-Lobato.Â
312 P.3d 897
| Haw. | 2013Background
- Defendant Luis Gomez-Lobato, assisted by a Spanish interpreter and represented by counsel, signed a written English-language jury-waiver form and initialed specific provisions at a family-court proceeding. The court conducted a brief on-the-record colloquy with yes/no questions through the interpreter about the signature and whether the form was explained in Spanish.
- The State later filed an amended complaint that changed only the date of the alleged offense; no new waiver was executed after the amendment.
- The family court proceeded with a bench trial and convicted Gomez-Lobato of Abuse of Family or Household Member; he was sentenced and appealed.
- On appeal the ICA affirmed, finding the waiver valid under the totality of the circumstances. Gomez-Lobato sought certiorari, arguing the waiver was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made (primarily due to a language barrier), and also challenged sentencing.
- The Hawai'i Supreme Court held the colloquy here was insufficient given the language barrier and sparse record about defendant’s background; it vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial, declining to address the sentencing claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gomez-Lobato) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of jury-trial waiver | Waiver invalid: court asked only yes/no questions through an interpreter and did not ensure Gomez-Lobato understood the right he waived | Waiver valid: signed written waiver, interpreter assistance, counsel reviewed form, totality of circumstances show knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver | Waiver invalid on this record; colloquy was insufficient given the language barrier and lack of on-the-record verification of understanding; conviction vacated and case remanded for new trial |
| Need for re-waiver after amended complaint (date change) | Waiver executed before amendment, so not valid for amended complaint | Amendment only changed date, not substance or severity; prior valid waiver remains effective | Amendment did not require new waiver where charge and seriousness unchanged; argument rejected (but disposition remands on waiver defect) |
| Whether Duarte-Higareda four-part colloquy is mandatory | Court should require the four-part advisement (twelve jurors, jury selection participation, unanimity, judge decides if waived), especially when salient facts like language barrier exist | Four-part colloquy helpful but not constitutionally mandatory; validity assessed by totality of circumstances | Court declines to adopt rigid, mandatory four-part rule; however, where a salient fact (e.g., language barrier) exists courts must take additional on-the-record steps to ensure comprehension; here those steps were not taken |
| Standard of review / plain error | N/A (challenge raised on appeal) | N/A | Waiver validity is a constitutional question reviewed de novo; court recognizes plain error may be corrected even if not raised below given the fundamental right at stake |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Friedman, [citation="93 Hawai'i 63, 996 P.2d 268"] (Haw. 2000) (totality-of-circumstances test for jury-waiver validity; guidance on colloquy)
- United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (language barrier is a salient fact; suggested four-part colloquy to ensure knowing waiver)
- State v. Ibuos, 75 Haw. 118, 857 P.2d 576 (Haw. 1993) (defendant must personally waive jury right; court’s duty to inform)
- State v. Young, 73 Haw. 217, 830 P.2d 512 (Haw. 1992) (defendant must make the waiver personally after being well informed)
- State v. Han, [citation="130 Hawai'i 83, 306 P.3d 128"] (Haw. 2013) (language barrier as salient fact in assessing adequacy of colloquy)
- State v. Sprattling, [citation="99 Hawai'i 312, 55 P.3d 276"] (Haw. 2002) (upholding a waiver where court expressly explained salient aspects and defendant articulated understanding)