CONSERVATORSHIP OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF S.M.

CONSERVATORSHIP OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF S.M. STANISLAUS COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 11, 2025, No. F088145
​
The PG argues defendant forfeited jury trial bc they fully participated in the hearing w/out objection.The rule is that a party might forfeit their right to present this error on appeal if he did not do enough to prevent/correct the error to the trial court. There is a split in authority as to whether the court must obtain a personal on-the-record waiver; but generally agree that defendant must personally have been advised of their right to jury trial. Generally failure to obtain a waiver does deny defendant of their right to jury trial on the entire cause in a civil commitment proceeding and can warrant reversal as the defendant has been not just merely denied a personal advisement of rights to a jury trial; defendant shall have inured a complete denial of the fundamental right to decide who hears the evidence to make the GD finding — a judge or a jury. Furthermore, because this finding is safeguarded by the same evidentiary burden of proof as a criminal hearing proof beyond a reasonable doubt;failure to obtain this waiver is that more injurious. The trial court record did not reflect any discussion of jury trial or any waiver by defendant; supporting defendant's claims. PG claimed that defendant's full participation negated any claim to right to advisement of jury trial or waiver on the record b/c their meaningful participation w/out any objection signaled their indirect forfeiture of such rights. However, that would be asking a lot of defendants since they would have to have to in depth legal knowledge of the proceedings against them given that the judge did not advise them of their right to begin with. It is not defendant's job to know all of the legal avenues even if they present as well spoken and knowledgeable about their case. Thus the appellate court reversed and remanded