Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the petitioner challenged the respondent court's denial of a request for a change of judge, arguing that the refusal was based on an erroneous determination of untimeliness. The central legal question was whether the petitioner's right to request a change of judge under Rule 10.2(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was forfeited by the 'commencement of trial.' The trial was initially scheduled for the afternoon of February 27, 1975, but was postponed to the following morning. The judge claimed that the trial had commenced, yet the jury had not been called for examination, the accepted criterion for the start of a trial. Citing relevant precedents, the court concluded that the trial had not officially begun, and therefore, the petitioner's request was timely. Consequently, the respondent judge was directed to grant the change of judge and halt further trial proceedings on February 28, 1975. The state's petition was granted, mandating a reassignment of the case in accordance with procedural rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Commencement of Trialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that a trial is not considered to have commenced until the jury is called for examination, thus allowing the petitioner's request for a change of judge.
Reasoning: The judge indicated that the trial had commenced, but the jury had not yet been called for examination, which is the standard for determining the start of a trial.
Right to Change of Judge under Rule 10.2(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Under Rule 10.2(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner retained the right to request a change of judge since they had not agreed to the judge's assignment nor participated in disqualifying pretrial proceedings.
Reasoning: The court agrees with the petitioner, stating that under Rule 10.2(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, any party in a criminal case has the right to request a change of judge unless they have previously agreed to the assignment or participated in certain pretrial proceedings.
Timeliness of Request for Change of Judgesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the petitioner's request for a change of judge was timely because the trial had not commenced as the jury had not been called for examination.
Reasoning: The key issue is whether the petitioner lost this right due to the 'commencement of trial.' The trial was set for 1:30 p.m. on February 27, 1975, but after discussions, it was reset for the following morning.