Waiver of Jury Trial by Default of Appearance: Plain Error and Constitutional Guarantees

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Montana’s decision in City of Missoula v. S. Charlie, 2025 MT 85, addressing whether a defendant’s failure to appear at a final pretrial hearing—after receiving clear notice that non-appearance would waive his jury-trial right—constituted a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. The case arose from misdemeanors stemming from a July 26, 2021 confrontation at Missoula’s Caras Park, where appellant Anthony Scott Charlie interfered with herbicide spraying, resisted arrest, and brandished a knife. The City charged him with five misdemeanors. After repeatedly missing scheduled hearings, the municipal court converted a jury trial into a bench trial. Charlie was convicted, appealed to district court, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Montana.

Key issues include: (1) the interplay of Montana’s “default of appearance” jury-waiver rule under Mont. Const. art. II, § 26, and federal and state constitutional protections; (2) the scope and application of the plain error doctrine when a defendant fails to object to a bench trial; and (3) how prior Montana precedents—particularly Salsgiver, Dahlin, Reim, and Cole—informed the Court’s analysis.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Katherine Bidegaray, writing for a unanimous Court, affirmed the district court’s order upholding Charlie’s disorderly conduct conviction. The Supreme Court held that:

Charlie received clear, written and oral notice at a stipulated omnibus hearing that failure to appear at a final pretrial conference would waive his right to jury trial.
His unexplained, voluntary non-appearance at the November 23, 2021 pretrial hearing triggered a valid Montana constitutional waiver of jury trial under art. II, § 26, and did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights.
Because Charlie never objected when the bench trial proceeded—first in absentia and then with his presence—the Court declined to find reversible plain error, emphasizing that reversal is only warranted when an unpreserved constitutional error is so obvious and prejudicial as to undermine fundamental fairness.

The Supreme Court therefore held that the municipal court’s conversion of the scheduled jury trial to a bench trial was proper, and affirmed Charlie’s conviction.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision pivots on four leading Montana cases:

City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver (2019 MT 126): Held that failure to appear at an omnibus hearing can automatically waive the jury-trial right under Mont. Const. art. II, § 26, but required a separate Sixth Amendment knowing-and-voluntary waiver analysis when the misdemeanor carried a maximum sentence exceeding six months.
State v. Dahlin (1998 MT 113): Applied plain error review to reverse a bench trial conviction where no written waiver of jury trial (required for felonies under statute) existed, underscoring that constitutional and statutory waiver requirements must be satisfied even if unpreserved.
State v. Reim (2014 MT 108): Distinguished Dahlin where defense counsel had filed a pretrial motion to waive jury trial and the defendant actively participated without objection, ratifying the waiver and precluding plain-error reversal.
State v. Cole (2025 MT 18): Rejected plain-error reversal of a bench trial for a misdemeanor PFA because the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived jury trial on the record and never objected.

These cases chart the interplay of statutory waiver rules (e.g., § 46-16-110, MCA), the Sixth Amendment standard for voluntary waiver, and Montana’s plain error doctrine. The Charlie Court used them to explain when a defendant may challenge a bench trial on appeal and when a failure to object constitutes ratification.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a two-step analysis:

Exercise of Plain Error Review. Although Charlie never objected to the waiver or bench trial, the Court invoked its common-law plain error doctrine to examine whether a fundamental constitutional right was infringed so gravely that it demands reversal despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.
Totality-of-Circumstances Waiver Analysis. The Court considered all evidence—defense counsel’s stipulation, the municipal court’s omnibus memorandum, Charlie’s multiple appearances and absences, and his failure to object at trial—to determine if waiver of jury trial was knowing and voluntary.

Key principles included:

Montana’s art. II, § 26, permits waiver of jury trial by “default of appearance” if the defendant is properly notified.
Salsgiver holds that when a misdemeanor involves a potential sentence over six months, the Sixth Amendment adds a separate knowing-and-voluntary waiver requirement.
Under plain error, unpreserved errors demand reversal only if they affect fundamental fairness, result in a miscarriage of justice, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process (Akers, George, Cole).

Applying these principles, the Court concluded:

Notice was adequate: at the October omnibus hearing—and via a written memorandum—Charlie was told that non-appearance would waive jury trial.
He voluntarily defaulted: no plausible excuse for missing the pretrial hearing, and he appeared the next day, only to participate without objection.
He ratified the waiver: by testifying and litigating in a judge-only forum without ever requesting a jury.
Plain error reversal was unwarranted: Charlie failed to show a manifest miscarriage of justice or that fundamental fairness was compromised.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies several important points for Montana practitioners and trial courts:

Notice Suffices. A clear warning—both oral and written—at an omnibus or pretrial conference can satisfy the notice requirement for default-of-appearance waiver under art. II, § 26.
Ratification by Silence. A defendant’s failure to object at trial to a bench proceeding, combined with active litigation in that forum, constitutes ratification and forecloses plain-error reversal.
Plain Error Threshold. Courts will not reverse unpreserved jury-waiver errors unless the record shows that the waiver was neither knowing nor voluntary or that a failure to reverse would produce a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Strategic Defense Considerations. Defendants and counsel must vigilantly assert jury-trial rights on the record if they wish to preserve them, especially after default notifications.

Overall, the decision reinforces the necessity of timely objection, strict adherence to waiver protocols, and the high bar for plain-error relief in jury-trial waiver cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Default of Appearance Waiver: Under Montana’s Constitution, if a defendant is warned that failing to attend a future hearing waives the jury right, then missing that hearing triggers automatically a jury-trial waiver.
Knowing, Intelligent, and Voluntary Waiver: A defendant must understand the right they give up, do so without coercion, and have the mental capacity to decide, especially when the Sixth Amendment is involved for “serious” misdemeanors.
Plain Error Doctrine: An appellate court’s limited authority to correct unpreserved but fundamental errors when justice demands it. The appellant bears the burden to prove both that a constitutional right was violated and that the error was so prejudicial or unfair that it requires reversal.
Bench Trial vs. Jury Trial: In a bench trial, the judge alone decides guilt; in a jury trial, the jury does. Bench trials may proceed only when a valid jury-trial waiver exists.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Montana in City of Missoula v. S. Charlie affirms that when a defendant is properly notified that missing a pretrial hearing waives the right to a jury trial—and then fails to appear without objection—such conduct constitutes a knowing and voluntary waiver. The decision underscores the high threshold for plain-error reversal of unpreserved jury-waiver claims and highlights that silence and participation in a bench forum ratify waiver. Trial counsel must take affirmative steps on the record to preserve jury-trial rights, and defendants must heed notices of default consequences or risk a judge-only trial. This ruling brings clarity to the intersection of Montana’s “default of appearance” rule, constitutional waiver standards, and the plain error doctrine, shaping fair and predictable criminal procedure in future cases.