State v. McDaniel

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. McDaniel

772 P.2d 951, 96 Or. App. 337, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 493

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 3, 1989

DocketC 87-12-37726; CA A49169

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 772 P.2d 951 (State v. McDaniel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. McDaniel, 772 P.2d 951, 96 Or. App. 337, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 493 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

*339 RIGGS, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction after a trial to the court for operating a motor vehicle in violation of an habitual offender order, ORS 811.165, felony driving while suspended. ORS 811.175, and driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. He asserts that his conviction is void, because there is no written waiver of a jury trial. We reverse and remand.

Consent to be tried without a jury requires an express written waiver under both Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 136.001. The state concedes that defendant gave neither a written nor an oral waiver. Instead, the state argues that defendant failed to preserve the error for appeal, because at no time during the proceeding did defendant disagree with his attorney about the waiver of a trial by jury. It contends that there is no “principled distinction” between the error in this case and constitutional errors that we decline to review because the error was not preserved. It urges that a defendant’s only recourse in such a case is a post-conviction proceeding, in which the court can determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to jury trial.

The “principled distinction” between the error in this case and those constitutional errors that we decline to hear unless preserved is the express requirement of the Oregon Constitution that a waiver of the right to trial by jury be in writing. Without such a writing there is no waiver. We have repeatedly emphasized that requirement. See, e.g., State v. Cordray, 91 Or App 436, 755 P2d 735 (1988); State v. Wiik, 31 Or App 571, 570 P2d 1021 (1977), rev den 281 Or 323 (1978). Further, ORAP 7.19(5) permits consideration of error on appeal that is apparent on the face of the record, even if it is not raised below. The absence of a signed waiver is such an error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*339 RIGGS, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction after a trial to the court for operating a motor vehicle in violation of an habitual offender order, ORS 811.165, felony driving while suspended. ORS 811.175, and driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. He asserts that his conviction is void, because there is no written waiver of a jury trial. We reverse and remand.

Consent to be tried without a jury requires an express written waiver under both Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 136.001. The state concedes that defendant gave neither a written nor an oral waiver. Instead, the state argues that defendant failed to preserve the error for appeal, because at no time during the proceeding did defendant disagree with his attorney about the waiver of a trial by jury. It contends that there is no “principled distinction” between the error in this case and constitutional errors that we decline to review because the error was not preserved. It urges that a defendant’s only recourse in such a case is a post-conviction proceeding, in which the court can determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to jury trial.

The “principled distinction” between the error in this case and those constitutional errors that we decline to hear unless preserved is the express requirement of the Oregon Constitution that a waiver of the right to trial by jury be in writing. Without such a writing there is no waiver. We have repeatedly emphasized that requirement. See, e.g., State v. Cordray, 91 Or App 436, 755 P2d 735 (1988); State v. Wiik, 31 Or App 571, 570 P2d 1021 (1977), rev den 281 Or 323 (1978). Further, ORAP 7.19(5) permits consideration of error on appeal that is apparent on the face of the record, even if it is not raised below. The absence of a signed waiver is such an error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

772 P.2d 951, 96 Or. App. 337, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcdaniel-orctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack