In what circumstances have courts sustained the constitutionality of a statute which allows a defendant to request to be tried by the court instead of by the jury?

In State v. Worden, 46 Conn. 349, 33 Am.Rep. 27 (1878), however, the court sustained the constitutionality of a statute which provided that in all prosecutions the party accused, if he should so elect, might be tried by the court instead of by the jury. The Constitution of the state provided that every person accused should 'have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury ' and also that 'the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. ' The prisoner was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of rape upon a child under ten years of age. The prisoner requested to be tried by the court, and after conviction moved in arrest of judgment the unconstitutionality of the statute. It was urged on his behalf that the right of an individual to a trial by jury was so interwoven with the interest of the body politic that its surrender was placed beyond the power of the individual. The court thought the particular constitutional provision referred to was 'apparently designed to secure personal rights of individuals. ' And the court attached importance to the phraseology of the clause in the state Constitution as compared with that used in the Constitution of the United States, implying that a different conclusion might have been reached, had the language been such as was used in the federal Constitution.