People v. BlackmonPeople v. Blackmon
On July 19, 1978, defendant, Aaron Tyrone Blackmon, was found guilty, in a bench trial, of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder,
Michigan law specifies the circumstances under which a defendant may effectively waive his right to a jury trial.
An examination of the lower court file indicates that the defendant executed a written "Waiver of Trial By Jury” form on the same date on which defendant’s trial commenced, July 18, 1978. The transcript of the trial proceedings further discloses *464 that the following exchange ensued between the court and defendant’s counsel, Ira H. Harris:
"The Court: Have you filed a written waiver?
"Mr. Harris: Yes, your Honor.
"The Court: That firearm count is on this case?
"Mr. Harris: Yes, your Honor.
"The Court: All right, because I don’t know anything about this case and that’s the way it should be.
"Mr. Harris: Very well.
"The Court: But I’m always concerned about that firearm count. This case has been pretrialed and everything, you tried to work out anything?
"Mr. Harris: People offered no reduced plea.
"The Court: All right. Are you ready to proceed?
"Mr. Pearl: Yes, your Honor.
"The Court: You make your opening statement.”
The question before this Court is whether the statutory requirement of a waiver "made in open court” is met by evidence on the record that a written waiver was executed by the defendant on the date of trial and was referred to by defense counsel as filed in response to the court’s inquiry in that regard. We hodl that the above facts do not constitute sufficient compliance with the statutory direction.
In
People v
McKaig,
While other trial records lacking an oral acknowledgement may nevertheless contain sufficient additional evidence that a waiver was executed in open court, those facts are not presently before this Court. In the interest of insuring that waivers are properly executed and acknowledged, however, we reiterate the advice offered in McKaig:
"We encourage trial judges to supplement the written waiver with an oral acknowledgement by the defendant. This practice eliminates any doubt as to whether or not the waiver was made in open court.” McKaig, supra, 750-751.
Defendant’s other contention of error merits no discussion.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Notes
The waiver in this case was on a printed form containing a printed provision for acknowledgment before a deputy clerk.