Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A trial court committed reversible error when it proceeded to a bench trial rather than setting the case for a jury trial after the defendant was discharged from a pretrial agreement, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has ruled.
Appellant-defendant Maggie Winans was charged with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement in March 2021. At her initial hearing, Winans executed a “Rights Advice at Initial Hearing in Misdemeanor Cases” form in which she was informed of her right to a trial by jury.
Her counsel filed a motion for jury trial, which the Cass Superior Court granted.
But before her scheduled trial, Winans entered into a pretrial diversion agreement providing that if she complied with the terms, her charges would be dismissed 12 months after execution of the agreement. The agreement did not contain any terms regarding a written waiver of jury trial.
In April 2022, a motion for hearing was filed because Winans has been discharged from the pretrial diversion program, and the trial court issued an order setting the matter for a pretrial conference.
Winans’s original attorney withdrew and, in June 2022, her new counsel filed a motion to continue the pretrial conference, which was granted.
After two hearings, both minute sheets indicated that a bench trial was set for Sept. 12, 2022. Nothing in the record indicated Winans signed anything waiving her jury trial, and no waiver was discussed at either hearing.
The bench trial was rescheduled and held in December, when the court found Winans guilty as charged. She was sentenced to an aggregate of 730 days, with four days credits time and the balance suspended to probation.
Winans appealed her convictions, raising the issue of whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it failed to reset the matter for a jury trial after her pretrial diversion agreement was terminated.
The COA determined that failure was reversible error.
“The effect of Winans’s discharge from the pre-trial diversion program was to return her to the original position that she occupied before she entered into the pre-trial diversion program, i.e., being prosecuted for domestic battery and resisting law enforcement,” Judge Peter Foley wrote. “Thus, the trial court should have set Winans’s case for a jury trial following her discharge from the pre-trial diversion program.”
The state argued Winans had invited the error, but the appellate court disagreed.
“The record before us fails to establish that Winans’s failure to object to the bench trial settings was part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy,” Foley wrote. “Where, as here, a defendant preserves her right to a jury trial, failure to object to a subsequently scheduled bench trial is insufficient to constitute waiver.”
The appellate court thus reversed Winans’ convictions and remanded for a jury trial.
The case is Maggie E. Winans v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-80.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.