Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; August 19, 2013; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Judge Joiner dissents from the denial of Donald Spruill's petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that Spruill has a clear legal right to a jury trial. The procedural history reveals that Spruill was indicted on November 15, 2010, for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Following this, the State placed his case on a pretrial diversion docket in 2011, claiming Spruill had waived his right to a jury trial through a Pretrial Diversion Agreement. In 2012, the State sought to reinstate the case to the nonjury docket, asserting Spruill's noncompliance with the agreement. Spruill subsequently challenged the validity of the agreement, claiming a lack of mutual understanding regarding its terms. An evidentiary hearing was held, where the court determined the agreement was valid and set a bench trial. Spruill later filed a motion to withdraw his jury trial waiver, arguing that the waiver was not made in open court as required by Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.1(b)(1), which mandates that defendants be informed of their trial rights. The circuit court denied his request and upheld the waiver. In his mandamus petition, Spruill reiterated the absence of an open court hearing and asserted that had such a hearing occurred, he would have maintained his right to a jury trial. Judge Joiner emphasizes the constitutional protection of the right to a jury trial in Alabama, referencing both the Alabama Constitution and relevant statutes.
The phrase "shall remain inviolate" prohibits any state entity from infringing upon the right to trial by jury, as established in case law including Gilbreath v. Wallace and Alford v. State. Amendment No. 328, § 6.11 (now § 150) of the Alabama Constitution affirms this right, allowing the Alabama Supreme Court to set procedural rules while preserving the common law right to jury trials. Felony prosecutions must be conducted by jury unless a waiver is made. According to Rule 18.1 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant may waive this right with the prosecutor's and court's consent, requiring the waiver to be documented either in writing or recorded in open court. The court must personally inform the defendant of their jury trial rights and confirm the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in Singleton v. State emphasizes the necessity for these conditions to be met for a valid waiver. In the case of Spruill, the State has the burden to demonstrate a clear waiver of the right to a jury trial. However, the court found that Spruill’s participation in a pretrial diversion program did not constitute a valid waiver, as there was no evidence that the circuit court fulfilled the procedural requirements of Rule 18.1(b)(1). Spruill asserts that he was not informed of his rights in open court, and had he been advised, he would not have waived his right to a jury trial.
The State does not challenge Spruill’s claim but argues that under Rule 18.1(b)(1) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant can waive the right to a jury trial in writing rather than in open court. However, the rule mandates that the court must personally address the defendant in open court, advise them of their jury trial rights, and confirm that the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently before it can be accepted. In this case, there is no evidence that such a hearing took place, indicating non-compliance with the rule. Thus, Spruill is entitled to the relief sought, leading to a dissenting opinion for issuing the writ. Although a valid waiver of the jury trial right can be made, it is advised that this be done through a formal agreement acknowledged in open court or via a written agreement signed by all parties, followed by the court's personal address to the defendant confirming the waiver's validity. The best practice involves ensuring that the waiver process is recorded on the record.
