State v. Greenwood, 2012 UT 48

297 P.3d 556 (Utah 2012) · Supreme Court of Utah · August 10, 2012

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court held that a felony defendant may not waive a jury trial without the prosecution's consent under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). The court rejected the defendant's due process argument, concluding that the district court had not attempted available safeguards to seat an impartial jury. The court reversed the order granting a bench trial and remanded for a jury trial.

Court
Supreme Court of Utah
Writing for the Court
Justice Parrish; Chief Justice Durrant; Associate Chief Justice Nehring; Justice Durham; Justice Lee
Jurisdiction
Utah
Decision date
August 10, 2012
Procedural posture
The State sought interlocutory review of the district court's order granting Greenwood's request to waive a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial over the prosecution's objection.
Standard of review
Interpretation of a procedural rule and constitutional questions are questions of law reviewed for correctness, without deference to the district court.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Utah; precedential.
Parties
State of Utah v. Jamie Lynn Greenwood
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal proceduredue processappellate procedurestandard of reviewjury selection

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) permits a felony defendant to waive a jury trial without the prosecution's consent.
  2. Whether requiring Greenwood to proceed to a jury trial over the prosecution's objection violated her due process rights under the circumstances.
  3. Whether the district court's ruling was entitled to deference as a mixed question of fact and law or because of alleged deficiencies in the appellate record.

Holdings

  1. Under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), a felony defendant may not waive a jury trial unless the court approves the waiver and the prosecution consents. The district court therefore erred by granting Greenwood's request for a bench trial over the State's objection.
  2. Greenwood's due process rights were not implicated because the district court had not attempted to seat an impartial jury or use available safeguards to address possible prejudice. It was premature to conclude that she could not receive a fair jury trial.
  3. The district court's ruling presented legal questions reviewed for correctness, not a deferential mixed-question review. The State was not required to marshal evidence or provide a transcript of an unrelated preliminary hearing because the district court made no factual findings and the transcript was not crucial to the jury-waiver determination.

Key quotations

All felony cases shall be tried by jury unless the defendant waives a jury in open court with the approval of the court and the consent of the prosecution. (559)
But a district court cannot disregard clearly established law merely because it disagrees with it. (560)
A defendant's only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. (561)
At this stage, however, it was premature for the district court to conclude that Ms. Greenwood either would not or could not receive a fair and impartial jury trial. (562)

Factual background

Greenwood was charged with two counts of rape, two counts of forcible sodomy, and one count of forcible sexual abuse arising from an alleged eleven-month sexual relationship with a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old boy. She acknowledged the sexual relationship but claimed it was consensual and that the alleged victim threatened and intimidated her; the State alleged that she provided gifts and cash and threatened to contact the boy's mother. Before jury selection, Greenwood sought a bench trial because of the inflammatory nature of the charges, potential confusion between charged and lesser offenses, and pretrial publicity.

Procedural history

Greenwood was charged with five felonies and pleaded not guilty. Before jury selection, she requested a bench trial, citing the nature of the charges, consent and age-related issues, and pretrial publicity. The district court granted the request over the State's objection, and the Utah Supreme Court granted an emergency stay and interlocutory review.

Remand instructions

Remand for a jury trial, using available safeguards to ensure a fair and impartial jury trial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…