489 U.S. 538, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 103 L.Ed.2d 550 (1989)
In separate incidents, petitioners Melvin R. Blanton and Mark D. Fraley were each charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §484.379(1) (1987) in the North Las Vegas, Nevada, Municipal Court.1 Neither petitioner had a prior DUI conviction.2 The municipal court denied their respective pretrial demands for a jury trial.3
Under Nevada statutes, a first-time DUI offender faces a minimum term of two days’ imprisonment and a maximum term of six months’ imprisonment.4 Alternatively, the offender may be ordered to perform 48 hours of work for the community while dressed in distinctive garb identifying him as a DUI offender.5 The offender must also pay a fine ranging from $200 to $1,000, automatically loses his driver’s license for 90 days, and must attend an alcohol abuse education course at his own expense.6 Repeat DUI offenders face increased penalties, including longer license suspensions and higher fines.7
On appeal, the Eighth Judicial District Court denied Blanton’s request for a jury trial.8 A month later, the district court granted Fraley’s request for a jury trial. Blanton appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, as did the city of North Las Vegas with respect to Fraley.9
After consolidating the two cases along with several others raising the same issue, the Supreme Court of Nevada remanded Blanton’s case with instructions to proceed without a jury trial.10 The court remanded Fraley’s case with instructions to reinstate his conviction.11 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether petitioners were entitled to a jury trial.12
Whether there is a constitutional right to a trial by jury for persons charged under Nevada law with driving under the influence of alcohol?13
It has long been settled that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision.14 In determining whether a particular offense should be categorized as petty, the most relevant criteria is the severity of the maximum authorized penalty, with primary emphasis placed on the maximum authorized period of incarceration.15 An offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less is presumed to be viewed by society as petty.16 A defendant is entitled to a jury trial in such circumstances only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a serious one.17
No. The maximum authorized prison sentence for first-time DUI offenders does not exceed six months, which creates a presumption that the Nevada Legislature views DUI as a petty offense for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.18 Considering the additional statutory penalties as well, the 90-day license suspension will be irrelevant if it runs concurrently with the prison sentence, which is assumed for present purposes to be the maximum of six months, and a restricted license may be obtained after only 45 days.19 The possible $1,000 fine is well below the $5,000 level set by Congress in its most recent definition of a petty offense.20 The requirement that an offender attend an alcohol abuse education course can only be described as de minimis.21
Even assuming the distinctive garb for 48 hours of community service is the source of some embarrassment, such a penalty will be less embarrassing and less onerous than six months in jail.22 Viewed together, the statutory penalties are not so severe that DUI must be deemed a serious offense for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.23
No, there is no constitutional right to a trial by jury for persons charged under Nevada law with driving under the influence of alcohol.24