203 A.3d 1150
R.I.2019Background
- Defendant Julio Morais was indicted for five counts of first-degree child molestation; one count was later dismissed and he was convicted at a bench trial on four counts.
- Before trial, Morais signed a written jury-waiver form in the courthouse cellblock (with defense counsel and a Creole interpreter present); the waiver was not signed in open court.
- On the record in open court the day before trial the trial justice conducted a colloquy with Morais (with the interpreter assisting), confirming Morais wished to waive a jury and understood the decision.
- The trial justice signed and approved the written waiver and then conducted the bench trial; Morais was convicted and sentenced to concurrent 50-year terms (35 years to serve).
- On appeal Morais argued (1) the written waiver was invalid under Super. R. Crim. P. 23(a) because it was signed outside the judge’s presence and (2) the on-the-record colloquy was inadequate to show a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver.
- The Supreme Court remanded for a hearing to determine where the form had been signed, then held that Rule 23(a) does not require the defendant to sign the written waiver in the trial judge’s physical presence so long as the waiver is reaffirmed in open court and the court approves it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morais) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(a) requires the written waiver to be signed in the trial judge’s physical presence in open court | Rule 23(a) is satisfied because Morais signed a written waiver before trial and the waiver was reaffirmed in open court; court approval was obtained | The waiver is invalid because Morais signed the form in the cellblock (not in open court) and could not read English | Held: Rule 23(a) does not mandate physical signing in the judge’s presence; a written waiver signed before trial plus on-the-record reaffirmation and court approval satisfies Rule 23(a). |
| Whether the trial court’s on-the-record colloquy established a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver despite language and education issues | Colloquy (with interpreter) and counsel involvement showed Morais knowingly and voluntarily waived jury trial | Morais lacked English fluency, education, and familiarity with the system, so the colloquy was inadequate | Held: The colloquy — confirming consultation with counsel, understanding, absence of confusion, and judge’s explanation of jury vs. bench trial — was sufficient to find the waiver knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. |
| Whether DiStefano/Paull require stricter compliance (signing in open court) | State: those cases are distinguishable where written waiver was absent or signed only after trial began/ended | Morais: relies on DiStefano/Paull to argue written-signing-in-court is required | Held: DiStefano and Paull are factually distinguishable; they require a written waiver but do not impose a physical-signature-in-court prerequisite. |
| Whether additional colloquy elements (e.g., unanimity, jury selection participation) were required | State: judge adequately described jury as 12 peers and explained judge’s role in bench trial; no bright-line checklist required | Morais: cites jurisdictions suggesting explicit advisals (unanimity, participation in selection, number of jurors) | Held: No rigid checklist required under Rhode Island law; the trial justice’s explanations were adequate under Rule 23(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moran, 605 A.2d 494 (R.I. 1992) (defendant may waive jury trial if waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. DiStefano, 593 A.2d 1351 (R.I. 1991) (written waiver required by Rule 23(a))
- State v. Paull, 739 A.2d 661 (R.I. 1999) (oral waiver plus post-trial signing insufficient under Rule 23(a))
- State v. Cruz, 517 A.2d 237 (R.I. 1986) (purpose of open-court approval is to ensure waiver is intelligent)
- State v. Burnside, 930 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App.) (Ohio rule satisfied where written waiver signed outside court is reaffirmed on the record)
- United States v. Martin, 704 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1983) (federal guidance suggesting minimum advisals for jury-waiver colloquy)
- Ciummei v. Commonwealth, 392 N.E.2d 1186 (Mass. 1979) (recommendations for colloquy elements though not imposing rigid requirements)