On Friday (January 23) the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District said a vengeful spouse was properly denied a jury trial.
On June 7, 2012, Tammie Terrell Aldridge (a.k.a. Tammie Terrell Wicker) learned that her husband, Jonathan Aldridge, was having an affair with his girlfriend, Pashion Ferrara.
On May 4, 2013, Aldridge stabbed her husband in his left forearm with a knife, threw a bleach-like substance in his face, burning his eyes, and stabbed her husband's tires. She claimed her husband was choking her, but she was convicted of four crimes and sentenced to four years and eight months in state prison.
She appealed, claiming the court violated her rights to a jury trial by improperly inducing her to waive those rights. The judge, in asking her if she wanted to waive a jury trial, had said her offenses were based on "fairly egregious facts" that could not be dropped. The judge asked her, "[D]o you want a jury to hear all that, which is going to sound terrible to hear all that stuff, or do you want a judge to hear it?"
Subsequently, Aldridge said she wanted a bench trial with no jury. But the judge had carefully explained her constitutional rights and what it meant to have no jury, said the appellate court Friday.
The trial court had also imposed a $3360 fine on her. The appellate court said the fine should be eliminated.
On Friday (January 23) the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District said a vengeful spouse was properly denied a jury trial.
On June 7, 2012, Tammie Terrell Aldridge (a.k.a. Tammie Terrell Wicker) learned that her husband, Jonathan Aldridge, was having an affair with his girlfriend, Pashion Ferrara.
On May 4, 2013, Aldridge stabbed her husband in his left forearm with a knife, threw a bleach-like substance in his face, burning his eyes, and stabbed her husband's tires. She claimed her husband was choking her, but she was convicted of four crimes and sentenced to four years and eight months in state prison.
She appealed, claiming the court violated her rights to a jury trial by improperly inducing her to waive those rights. The judge, in asking her if she wanted to waive a jury trial, had said her offenses were based on "fairly egregious facts" that could not be dropped. The judge asked her, "[D]o you want a jury to hear all that, which is going to sound terrible to hear all that stuff, or do you want a judge to hear it?"
Subsequently, Aldridge said she wanted a bench trial with no jury. But the judge had carefully explained her constitutional rights and what it meant to have no jury, said the appellate court Friday.
The trial court had also imposed a $3360 fine on her. The appellate court said the fine should be eliminated.
Comments