D’s Absence at Trial

PC § 1043: rules governing proceeding with a jury trial in D’s absence.
D’s right to be present at trial is not absolute; it may be expressly or impliedly waived. (People v. Espinoza (2016) 1 Cal.5th 61, 72.)
Trial may commence in D’s absence if Court finds a clearly established voluntary absence.
- Clearly established voluntary absence if:
  - (1) “A defendant at liberty remains away during his trial”
  - (2) “He must be aware of the processes taking place, of his right and of his obligation to be present, and”
  - (3) “He must have no sound reason for staying away.”
    - (Taylor v. United States (1973) 414 U.S. 17, 19-20, fn. 3.)
Burden of proof for “clearly established voluntary absence” appears to be clear & convincing evidence. (People v. Ramirez (2022) 14 Cal.5th 176, 189.)
- Clear and convincing evidence standard “requires a finding of high probability” that a fact is true. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998.)
Noncapital I/C D, Present at Start of Trial, Absent Later. A trial court may continue a trial without first obtaining D’s written or oral waiver of the right of presence – if other evidence indicates D has chosen to be absent voluntarily. (People v. Gutierrez (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1196, 1206.)
People v. Ramirez (2022) 14 Cal.5th 176, 189. Clearly established voluntary absence b/c:
- Aware of process. D was present first day of trial and ordered to appear following day
  - -> Held, clear & convincing evidence supports finding D was aware of processes taking place and knew of his right and obligation to be present the next day
- No sound reason for staying away.
  - D FTA’d & had ingested illicit drugs prompting an emergency response
  - Trial court sent officer to D’s address to arrange for D to come to court
  - D was sufficiently lucid to assess whether he needed medical treatment (refused)
  - This was the second time D FTA’d on the day of trial (first time claimed illness)
  - Held, clear & convincing evidence supports finding there was no sound reason for D failing to appear on the second day of trial.
Voluntarily ingesting illicit drugs. A D who fails to appear at trial after voluntarily ingesting illegal drugs is not necessarily voluntarily absent, as a matter of law, for purposes of PC 1043. (People v. Ramirez (2022) 14 Cal.5th 176.)
Voir Dire = critical stage D has right to be present at. (People v. Wall (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1048, 1059.)