State v. Spurlock, 175 So. 3d 955

Defendant faced criminal charges and proceeded to a bench trial after defense counsel waived a jury trial in open court in the defendant’s presence.
No on-the-record colloquy by the trial court with the defendant or minute entry documenting a personal oral waiver by the defendant.
Defendant had prior criminal-trial experience (including a jury conviction in State v. Spurlock) and was aware of jury-vs.-judge choices from past proceedings.
Appellate court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent due to lack of a formal colloquy/minute entry.
At the hearing, defense counsel’s uncontroverted testimony showed counsel consulted the defendant and waived the jury trial; defendant did not object at trial.
Supreme Court granted writ, concluded the waiver was knowing and intelligent under the circumstances, reinstated the conviction, and remanded to the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel may waive a jury trial on defendant's behalf	Counsel can waive if the defendant’s waiver was knowing and intelligent	A personal on-the-record waiver by the defendant was required	Counsel may waive if defendant knowingly and intelligently accepted waiver; here waiver was valid
Whether an on-the-record colloquy/minute entry is required	Preferred but not mandatory; not required by statute	Lack of colloquy means waiver may be invalid	Colloquy/minute entry preferred for clarity but not mandated
Standard for knowing and intelligent waiver	Defendant must understand choice between jury and judge	Prior experience and counsel consultation can show understanding	Waiver is knowing when defendant understands the alternatives; prior history may be considered
Effect of defendant’s failure to object at trial	Failure to object supports acceptance of waiver	Silence does not prove voluntariness absent other proof	Defendant’s silence and counsel’s testimony supported that waiver was voluntary and intelligent

State v. Pierre, 842 So.2d 321 (La. 2003) (defense counsel may waive defendant’s jury right if waiver is knowing and intelligent)
State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La. 1978) (defendant’s criminal history may inform whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent)
United States ex rel. Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F.2d 1174 (7th Cir. 1983) (defining knowing and intelligent waiver as understanding jury vs. judge choice)
State v. Spurlock, 539 So.2d 977 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1989) (example of defendant’s prior jury-trial experience)
State v. Muller, 351 So.2d 143 (La. 1977) (cases questioning sufficiency of counsel-effected jury waivers)
State v. Bazile, 144 So.3d 719 (La. 2013) (recent Louisiana decision addressing jury waiver issues)
State v. Brooks, 814 So.2d 72 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (recommending on-the-record colloquy and court finding when accepting a waiver)
State v. Fustier, 954 So.2d 866 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (recommending clerk minute entry of colloquy and ruling)