valid jury trial waiver in California

2026Generally, the failure “to obtain a valid jury trial waiver … denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial on the entire cause in a civil commitment proceeding.” (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1132 .) This error “defies ordinary harmless error analysis” (id. at p. 1134) and is a “ ‘miscarriage of justice’ within the meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 13 [that] requires reversal without inquiry into the strength of the evidence in a particular case.” (Id. at pp. 1132- 1133; see id. at pp. 1132-1134 [reversing for failure to obtain valid jury

2025As to prejudice, “[a]n error resulting in a complete denial of a person’s right to a jury trial on the entire cause in a commitment proceeding is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error analysis and automatically requires reversal.” (K.R., supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 143; see also People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 , 1132–1133 [generally, “fail[ure] to obtain a valid jury trial waiver … denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial on the entire cause in a civil commitment proceeding” and constitutes miscarriage of justice that requires reversal].) “Here, [J.A.] wa

2024(People v. Washington (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 453 , 468.) Generally, with respect to civil commitments, the failure of a court to obtain a valid jury trial waiver where required by statute “denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial,” and is a “‘miscarriage of justice’ within the meaning of article VI, section 13 [of the California Constitution] [that] requires reversal without inquiry into the strength of the evidence in a particular case.” (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1132-1133 [failure to obtain valid jury trial waiver from mentally disordered offender in

2024Though these are relevant considerations, we nonetheless find, under the totality of the circumstances, that the jury trial waiver was not adequate. 6 Generally, the failure “to obtain a valid jury trial waiver . . . denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial on the entire cause in a civil commitment proceeding.” (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1132 .) This error “defies ordinary harmless error analysis” (id. at p. 1134) and is a “ ‘miscarriage of justice’ within the meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 13 [that] requires reversal without in

2022(Conservatorship of Kevin A. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 .) “Generally, with respect to civil commitments, the failure of a court to obtain a valid jury trial waiver where required by statute ‘denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial,’ and is a ‘ “miscarriage of justice” within the meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 13 [that] requires reversal without inquiry into the strength of the evidence in a particular case.’ (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 , 1132–1133 [citations] [failure to obtain valid jury trial waiver from mentally disord

2022(Conservatorship of Kevin A. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 .) “Generally, with respect to civil commitments, the failure of a court to obtain a valid jury trial waiver where required by statute ‘denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial,’ and is a ‘ “miscarriage of justice” within the meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 13 [that] requires reversal without inquiry into the strength of the evidence in a particular case.’ (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 , 1132–1133 [citations] [failure to obtain valid jury trial waiver from mentally disord

2024Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.” (Daniels, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 991 (lead opn. of Cuéllar, J.); see People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 310 .) The failure to obtain a valid jury trial waiver in an OMHD commitment proceeding “defies ordinary harmless error analysis.” (Blackburn, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1134 .) “To speculate about whether a defendant would have chosen a jury trial if he or she had been in a position to make a personal choice would pose insurmountable difficul

2023Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.” (Daniels, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 991 (lead opn. of Cuéllar, J.); see People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 310 .) The failure to obtain a valid jury trial waiver in an OMHD commitment proceeding “defies ordinary harmless error analysis.” (Blackburn, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1134 .) “To speculate about whether a defendant would have chosen a jury trial if he or she had been in a position to make a personal choice would pose insurmountable difficul

2024Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.” (Daniels, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 991 (lead opn. of Cuéllar, J.); see People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 310 .) The failure to obtain a valid jury trial waiver in an OMHD commitment proceeding “defies ordinary harmless error analysis.” (Blackburn, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1134 .) “To speculate about whether a defendant would have chosen a jury trial if he or she had been in a position to make a personal choice would pose insurmountable difficul

2023Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.” (Daniels, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 991 (lead opn. of Cuéllar, J.); see People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 310 .) The failure to obtain a valid jury trial waiver in an OMHD commitment proceeding “defies ordinary harmless error analysis.” (Blackburn, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1134 .) “To speculate about whether a defendant would have chosen a jury trial if he or she had been in a position to make a personal choice would pose insurmountable difficul

2024(People v. Washington (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 453 , 468.) Generally, with respect to civil commitments, the failure of a court to obtain a valid jury trial waiver where required by statute “denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial,” and is a “‘miscarriage of justice’ within the meaning of article VI, section 13 [of the California Constitution] [that] requires reversal without inquiry into the strength of the evidence in a particular case.” (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1132-1133 [failure to obtain valid jury trial waiver from mentally disordered offender in

2024Though these are relevant considerations, we nonetheless find, under the totality of the circumstances, that the jury trial waiver was not adequate. 6 Generally, the failure “to obtain a valid jury trial waiver . . . denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial on the entire cause in a civil commitment proceeding.” (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1132 .) This error “defies ordinary harmless error analysis” (id. at p. 1134) and is a “ ‘miscarriage of justice’ within the meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 13 [that] requires reversal without in

2026Accordingly, we treat a trial court’s failure to obtain a required personal jury trial waiver as tantamount to the denial of a jury trial, and as such, it constitutes a “miscarriage of justice” under article VI, section 13.” (Id. at p. 1134; see K.R. v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 143 [ “An error resulting in a complete denial of a person’s right to a jury trial on the entire cause in a commitment proceeding is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error analysis 11 and automatically requires reversal.”]; Conservatorship of Joanne R., supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1016-1017 [“wit

2022(Conservatorship of Kevin A. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 .) “Generally, with respect to civil commitments, the failure of a court to obtain a valid jury trial waiver where required by statute ‘denies the defendant his or her statutory right to a jury trial,’ and is a ‘ “miscarriage of justice” within the meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 13 [that] requires reversal without inquiry into the strength of the evidence in a particular case.’ (People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 , 1132–1133 [citations] [failure to obtain valid jury trial waiver from mentally disord

2018(Traugott, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 496 ; People v. Blackburn, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 1132–1134 [failure to obtain a valid jury trial waiver is tantamount to the denial of a jury trial and defies ordinary harmless error analysis.].) 19 Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 712 ; see also People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1, 5 [“The appellate court correctly observed that a discharge of the entire jury without a verdict is equivalent to an acquittal and bars a retrial unless defendant consented to it, or legal necessity required it.”].) Here, judgment was entered in a court of compete

2018(Traugott, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 496 ; People v. Blackburn, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 1132–1134 [failure to obtain a valid jury trial waiver is tantamount to the denial of a jury trial and defies ordinary harmless error analysis.].) 19 Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 712 ; see also People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1, 5 [“The appellate court correctly observed that a discharge of the entire jury without a verdict is equivalent to an acquittal and bars a retrial unless defendant consented to it, or legal necessity required it.”].) Here, judgment was entered in a court of compete

2021In a criminal proceeding, “‘a defendant’s waiver of the right to jury trial may not be accepted by the court unless it is knowing and intelligent, that is, “‘“made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it,”’” as well as voluntary “‘“in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate 9 choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.”’”’” (People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166 (Sivongxxay); accord, People v. Cunningham (2015) 61 Cal.4th 609, 636-637 .)5 “‘[W]hether or not there is an inte

2017In Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389 , 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 , a capital case, the Supreme Court cited noncapital authority as the applicable standard for a defendant who seeks to plead guilty or waive counsel. ( Id . at pp. 396, 400-401, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , citing Parke v. Raley , supra , 506 U.S. at pp. 28-29, 113 S.Ct. 517 ; Faretta , supra , 422 U.S. at p. 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ; Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458 , 468, 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 .) Similarly, our recent decision in Sivongxxay , supra , 3 Cal.5th 151 , 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 265 , 396 P.3d 424 , did not employ a h

2013(See People v. Smith, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 500 [California cases prescribe no “specific formula” for obtaining a valid jury trial waiver].) Delisi contends that the court was required to inquire into his competence before accepting his jury trial waiver because his mental health was a “substantial issue.” (See U.S. v. Christensen, supra, 18 F.3d at pp. 825-826.) We disagree for reasons previously explained. 20 II.