State v. Ames

In determining whether an assignment of error is adequately preserved, a court looks at "whether the policies that underlie the preservation requirement—giving the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond, fostering appellate review through full development of the record, and giving the trial court the opportunity to fully consider and rule in the first instance—have been served in a particular case." State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 340-41, 211 P3d 262 (2009). In assessing a defendant's requested waiver of jury trial, “[a]ll things considered, the paramount consideration remains whether a bench trial will fully protect a defendant’s rights.” State v. Austin, 274 Or App 114, 120, 360 P3d 603 (2015)

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for three counts of second-degree burglary, two counts of first-degree theft, and one count of second-degree criminal mischief.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his request to waive a jury trial.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court struck the wrong balance when weighing the relevant factors that underlie the decision for a trial court to consent to a defendant’s jury trial waiver under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. In response, the State presented two arguments: (1) the State argued that Defendant failed to preserve the assignment of error for appellate review because Defendant did not object or make any further legal argument after the trial court denied his request to waive the jury and (2) the State argued that the trial court's denial of Defendant's request to waive a jury trial was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion. In determining whether an assignment of error is adequately preserved, a court looks at "whether the policies that underlie the preservation requirement—giving the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond, fostering appellate review through full development of the record, and giving the trial court the opportunity to fully consider and rule in the first instance—have been served in a particular case." State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 340-41, 211 P3d 262 (2009). In assessing a defendant's requested waiver of jury trial, “[a]ll things considered, the paramount consideration remains whether a bench trial will fully protect a defendant’s rights.” State v. Austin, 274 Or App 114, 120, 360 P3d 603 (2015). The Court held that Defendant's error was sufficiently preserved for appellate review because the inconvenience to the court was minor compared to Defendant's exercise of his constitutional rights.  The Court also held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's waiver request because it was not "within the permissible range of legally correct outcomes."

Reversed and remanded.