 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Limoz4/15/2005
case, the district court's colloquy was sufficient to obtain a valid jury waiver, and Barros' first point of error must fail.
Barros, 105 Hawaii at 169-70, 95 P.3d at 23-24 (brackets and some bracketed material omitted).
Here, Defendant makes mere mention of "the fact that this case originated in the family court, the young age (18 years old) and experience of Appellant, and Appellant's limited background with the criminal justice system." Opening Brief at 26 (footnote omitted). However, none of these factors, among "the totality of the circumstances of this case," Barros, 105 Hawaii at 170, 95 P.3d at 24, can be a "'salient fact' bearing upon [Defendant's] ability to understand his jury waiver, . . . that would have created the need for an extensive colloquy by the trial court," id. at 169, 95 P.3d at 23 (citations, some internal quotation marks, emphasis and original brackets omitted), unless its particular "bearing upon [Defendant's] ability to understand his jury waiver" in this particular case is explained, id. at 169, 95 P.3d at 23 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), something which Defendant on appeal does not deign to do. By the same token, Defendant's unadorned references to his "mental health issues" -- whatever those mental health issues might be -- and to "Clonadin and . . . Zoloft" -- whatever those medications and their psychotropic effects might be -- are unavailing. Defendant also observes that " ven Appellant's mother has previously noted that Appellant was easily confused." Opening Brief at 26. Defendant bases his observation on a colloquy that occurred at a hearing in family court:
THE COURT: I believe that your son has a right to be here, and I don't need to be so efficient that we skip right over that right. I am frankly happy to postpone it if you think that that's something we should do.
MS. LIMOZ: I don't think so. I think it would be just more confusing for him --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. LIMOZ: -- if he was here.
This does not amount to an assertion that Defendant was "easily confused." All in all, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in accepting Defendant's waiver of jury trial.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the August 22, 2002 judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|