setting aside the contemporaneous objection requirement because a defendant does not need a contemporaneous objection to preserve his constitutional right to a trial
How later courts described this case
- setting aside the contemporaneous objection requirement because a defendant does not need a contemporaneous objection to preserve his constitutional right to a trial
- the violation of a right to a jury trial satisfies one of the “serious errors” set forth in Wicks v. State, supra
- denial of right to jury trial constituted “structural error”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. I join Justice Glaze’s dissent and add one observation. The trial court initiated the jury trial waiver issue by its written notice to the appellant and counsel. The appellant made no response. That is different from a situation where a defendant initiates the waiver under Ark. R. Crim. P. 31.2. Thus, by not availing himself of a jury trial after notice from the trial court, the appellant waived it.