Rule 23 Trial by Jury or Court

Rule Text

Amendment history: Amended July 22, 1993, effective October 19, 1993; amended and effective November 1, 1993. Compare. — Rule 23, Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. Alternate jurors. — District court did not err in dismissing a juror and replacing him with an alternate because the juror admitted to violating the court’s instructions by discussing the case with another juror prior to deliberations. Croy v. State, 2023 WY 124, 540 P.3d 217, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 125 (Wyo. 2023). Criminal defendant has absolute right to common-law jury trial. — Taylor v. State, 612 P.2d 851, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 278 (Wyo. 1980). Defendant’s right to waive jury trial has never been questioned. — Taylor v. State, 612 P.2d 851, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 278 (Wyo. 1980). Rule confers upon defendant “qualified” right to waive jury trial. — The right is qualified because waiver requires approval of the court and consent of the state. Johnson v. State, 806 P.2d 1282, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 29 (Wyo. 1991), reh’g denied, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 45 (Wyo. Mar. 27, 1991). Venue changed where fair, impartial, jury questioned. — If the right to a fair and impartial jury is questioned, a motion for a change of venue is the proper recourse under Rule 23. Johnson v. State, 806 P.2d 1282, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 29 (Wyo. 1991), reh’g denied, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 45 (Wyo. Mar. 27, 1991). Requisite inquiry on adequacy of jury waiver is: (1) was the waiver express; and (2) was it knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Robbins v. State, 635 P.2d 781, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 382 (Wyo. 1981). Oral waiver valid if made knowingly and voluntarily. — Although a written waiver of the right to a jury trial is preferred, an oral waiver is valid where it appears from the record to have been made knowingly and voluntarily. Robbins v. State, 635 P.2d 781, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 382 (Wyo. 1981). Only purpose of written waiver is to insure greater probability of a defendant’s understanding of what he is doing if and when he waives a right to trial by jury. Robbins v. State, 635 P.2d 781, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 382 (Wyo. 1981). Duty of Supreme Court. — Where the case was tried to the court with a jury waiver and the court made a general finding of guilt, in the absence of a request for special findings, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to examine the record to determine if there was substantial credible evidence sufficient to sustain the general finding. Gonzales v. State, 516 P.2d 592, 1973 Wyo. LEXIS 191 (Wyo. 1973). Substitution of alternate juror was error. — The substitution of an alternate juror, after jury deliberations had begun in a defendant’s kidnapping trial, constituted prejudicial error, where (1) the reconstituted jury was not instructed to recommence deliberations from the beginning; (2) there was no inquiry as to whether the remaining regular jurors could set aside their previous deliberations and any opinions formed during those deliberations; and (3) the potential for prejudice was evidenced by the fact that the original jury deliberated the previous afternoon without reaching a verdict, but managed to reach a verdict with the participation of the alternate juror in less than an hour. Alcalde v. State, 2003 WY 99, 74 P.3d 1253, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 120 (Wyo. 2003). Trial court committed plain error and violated defendant’s right to a fair trial in providing a supplemental jury instruction. The jury indicated by its question that it was unsure of what facts made up the course of conduct necessary to find defendant guilty of the offense of stalking; by directing the jury to particular evidence that it could consider, the trial court provided inappropriate evidentiary guidance and violated defendant’s right to have the facts of the case determined solely by the jury. Snow v. State, 2009 WY 117, 216 P.3d 505, 2009 Wyo. LEXIS 128 (Wyo. 2009). Findings of fact in bench trial. — Trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal during her bench trial where the State met its burden of proving all the essential elements of child endangerment beyond a reasonable doubt; even though there were some errors in the court’s findings of fact, the evidence, which included the testimony of a confidential informant, defendant’s live-in boyfriend, and the investigating officer, was sufficient to show that defendant knew methamphetamine was being ingested, possessed, or stored in the residence and that she knowingly and voluntarily allowed her five-year-old son to remain in a dwelling where she knew methamphetamine was being ingested, possessed, or stored. Reyes v. State, 2022 WY 41, 505 P.3d 1264, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 39 (Wyo. 2022).