People v. Eyen
291 Ill. App. 3d 38, 225 Ill. Dec. 249, 683 N.E.2d 193 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial is only valid if the defendant executes a written waiver or makes a knowing and understanding oral waiver in open court. A defendant cannot be deemed to have acquiesced to a waiver made by counsel outside of the defendant's presence.
Facts:
- On April 8, 1995, at approximately 1 a.m., Officer Douglas Olsen discovered John Eyen pushing his car northbound on a public street.
- Eyen was pushing the car from the driver's side with the door open and was the only person in the vicinity.
- Officer Olsen observed that Eyen exhibited signs of intoxication, including glassy eyes, difficulty standing, and a strong odor of alcohol.
- Eyen told the officer that someone else had been driving but was unable to provide a full name or contact information for this person.
- When asked if his engine had locked up due to damage, Eyen responded, 'No, I shut it off.'
- Officer Olsen found car keys in Eyen's pocket that fit the ignition.
- The officer determined that the car's automatic transmission could only be placed in neutral (to be pushed) if the key was in the ignition, and the key could not be removed while the car was in neutral.
Procedural Posture:
- John Eyen was charged by complaint with driving while under the influence of alcohol.
- At a pretrial hearing where Eyen was not present, his attorney requested a bench trial, which the trial court scheduled.
- A bench trial was held in the trial court, resulting in a conviction.
- Eyen filed a post-trial motion for a new trial, arguing in part that the court had not obtained a valid jury waiver.
- The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Eyen.
- Eyen (appellant) appealed his conviction to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant make a knowing and understanding waiver of the right to a jury trial when defense counsel requests a bench trial outside the defendant's presence, and the defendant later appears for the bench trial without any on-the-record discussion of the jury right?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. A criminal defendant does not make a knowing and understanding waiver of the right to a jury trial under these circumstances. For a defendant to validly waive the constitutional right to a jury trial, the waiver must be made knowingly and understandingly in open court. The court found that Eyen did not execute a written waiver, nor did the record demonstrate a valid oral waiver. A defendant may acquiesce to their counsel's waiver, but only if that waiver is expressly made in the defendant's presence. In this case, Eyen's counsel requested a bench trial at a pretrial hearing where Eyen was not present. On the day of the trial, there was no mention of the jury right or a waiver in Eyen's presence before the trial commenced. The court distinguished this case from precedents like People v. Sailor and People v. Asselborn, where defense counsel waived the jury right while the defendant was present in court. Because Eyen was not present when his counsel requested the bench trial and was never admonished about his right in open court, he could not be deemed to have knowingly acquiesced to the waiver.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high procedural standard required for a criminal defendant to waive the fundamental right to a jury trial. It clarifies that a defendant's mere passive presence at the start of a bench trial is insufficient to constitute a valid waiver, especially when the initial waiver was made by counsel in the defendant's absence. The ruling puts the onus on trial courts and defense attorneys to ensure any jury waiver is explicitly confirmed with the defendant on the record in open court. This holding serves to protect defendants from inadvertently losing their constitutional rights through procedural shortcuts or assumptions made by their legal representatives.
