SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, HODGES and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

June 17, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 49 2 . THOM AS v . THE STATE.

M I LLE R

, Pres i d i n g Ju d ge.

T h i s i s th e s eco n d ap p earan ce o f Ny ro n Th o m as ’ s cas e b efo re th i s Co u r t

. A

ju ry co n v i ct ed Ny ro n Th o m as o f a g g r a v at ed as s au l t wi t h a d ead ly weap o n (OCGA

§ 1 6 -5 -2 1 ), p o s s es s i o n o f a fi rearm d u ri n g co m m i s s io n of a fel o ny (OCGA § 1 6 -1 1

-

1 0 6 ), an d p o s s es s i o n o f a fi rearm b y a co nv i ct ed fel on (OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -1 3 1 ). S t a t e

v. Th o ma s

, 3 5 0 G a. Ap p

. 7 6 3 (8 3 0 SE2 d 2 9 6 ) (2 0 1 9 ). Th om as ap p eal s fro m t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d en i al o f hi s m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

, arg u i n g th at t h e t ri al co u rt fai led t o en s u re

t h at he was p res en t du ri n g sev eral b en ch co n feren ces wh ich were cri t i cal s t ag es o f t h e

p ro ceed in g

. Fo r t h e reas o n s th at fo l l o w, w e co n cl u d e t h at Th o m as i s n o t en t i t l ed t o

a n ew t ri al o n t h i s g ro u n d an d t h erefo re affi rm Th o m as ’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d s en t en ce.

In t h e p rev io us ap p eal , we s u m m ari zed t h e fact s as fo l l ows :T h e r e c o rd s h o ws t hat t h e ch arg es ag ai n s t Th o m as aro s e fro m a n

al t ercat i o n b et ween Th o m as an d [Sh i n n ara] Gee o n Oct ob er 9

, 2 0 1 4

.

Th e t wo m en b eg an arg u i n g

, a n d at so m e p o i n t d u ri ng t h e en co un t er,

Th o m as ’ s g u n d is ch arg ed

. Th o m as t h en ch as ed Gee aro u nd a co rn er an d

f i r e d h i s weap o n ag ai n

, b u t th e s eco n d s h o t d i d n o t m ak e co n t act wi t h

Gee. Th e m ed i cal ex am i n er t es t i fi ed th at Gee was s h o t o nl y o n ce, an d

t h e fat al s h o t en t ered Gee’ s arm an d ri co ch et ed i n t o h i s t o rs o

. Gee d ied

fro m t h e i n

ju ri es h e s us t ai n ed t o h i s i n t ern al org a n s w h en t he b u l l et

l o d g ed i n h i s ab d o m in al cav i t y

. Th o m as tes t ifi ed i n h is o wn defen s e at

t ri al an d cl ai m ed h e d i d n o t i n t en d t o s ho o t Ge e

. H e rai s ed th e

affi rm at iv e d efen s es o f s el f-d efen se, acci d en t , an d ju s t ifi cat i o n.

Th o m as was ch arg ed b y i n d i ct m en t fo r m u rd e r

, t w o co u n t s o f fel o n y

m u r d e r

, ag g rav at ed as sau l t wi t h a dead ly weap on

, p o s s es s i on o f a

fi rearm d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i o n o f a fel o n y

, an d p os s es s i o n of a fi rearm

b y a co n v i ct ed fel on

. Sp eci fi c a l l y, t h e i n d ict m en t al l eg ed t h at Th o m as

as s au l t ed G ee “ b y s ho o t i n g h i m wi t h a h an d g un

, t he s am e b ei n g a dead l y

weap o n .” See OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 1 (a) (2 ) (“ A p ers o n co m m i t s t he offen s e

o f ag g rav at e d a s sau l t wh en h e or s h e as s au l t s

... [w] i t h a dead l y

weap o n

... .”).

Th e ju ry ret urn ed a v erd i ct fi n d i n g Th o m as n ot g ui l t y o f m u rd er, fel o n y

m u rd er, an d th e les ser i n cl u d ed o ffen s e o f v o l u n t ary m an s l au g h t er. T he

ju ry fo u n d Th o m as g u i l ty o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t wi t h a d ead l y weap o n

,

p o s s es si o n o f a fi rearm d u ri n g t h e co m m i s s io n o f a fel o n y

, an d

p o s s es si o n o f a fi rearm b y a co nv i ct ed fel o n

. Th e t ri al co u rt s en t en ced

Th o m as t o t wen t y

y ears t o s erv e fo r ag g rav at ed as s au l t (Co un t 4 ); fi ve

2y ears t o s erv e fo r p o s s es s i o n o f a fi rearm du ri n g t h e co m m i s s io n o f a

fel o n y (co n s ecu t i v e t o Co u n t 4 ); an d fi v e y ears t o serv e fo r p o ss es s i o n

o f a fi re a r m b y a co n v i ct ed fel o n (co n secu t i v e t o Co u n t 4 an d

s u s p en d ed ).

In h i s am en d ed m o t io n fo r a n ew t ri al

, Th o m as as s ert ed erro r in t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o l i m i t i t s ju ry i n s tru ct i on o n ag g rav at ed as s au lt wi t h a

d ead l y weap on t o t h e m et h o d ch arg ed i n t he i n d i ct m en t

. Th e t ri al co u rt

ag r e e d t h a t i t s ch arg e was erro n eo us an d g ran t ed a n ew t ri al o n t h i s

b as i s.

Id . at 7 6 4

.

In t h e prev i o u s ap p eal

, t h e St at e arg u ed th at t h e t r i a l c o u rt erred i n g ran t i n g

Th o m as a n ew t ri al b as ed o n an erro n eo u s ju ry ch arg e. Id

. at 7 6 5 (1 ). W e co n cl u d ed

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n t h at reg ard

, an d w e rev ers ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er an d

rem an ded t h e cas e fo r t h e t ri al co u rt t o co n si d er t h e rem ai ni n g g ro un d s as s ert ed in

Th o m as ’ s m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. Id

. at 7 6 8 (2 ). On rem an d, t he t ri al co u rt en t ered an

o rd er d en y i n g Th om as ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al as t o t he o th er g ro u n d s i n h i s m o t i o n.

He t h en fi l ed t h is ap p eal

.

In h i s s o l e en um erat i o n o f erro r, Th o m as co nt en d s t h at h i s co ns t i t u ti o n al ri g h t s

were v i o l at ed becau s e h e was ex cl u d ed fro m b en ch co n feren ces i n t h ree i n s t an ces :

(1 ) du ri ng ju ry s el ect i o n

, wh en t he t ri al co u rt an d h i s tri al co u n s el s p o k e a b o u t

3ex cu si n g a ju ro r; (2 ) d u ri n g t h e fi rs t day o f t ri al

, wh en t h e t ri al co u rt s u s t ai n ed h i s

t ri al co u n s el ’ s ob

jec t i o n t o t h e St at e’ s at t em p t to i nt ro d u ce s t i l l im ag es fro m a

s u rv ei l l an ce v i d eo ; an d (3 ) d u ri n g t h e s eco n d day o f t ri al

, wh en t h e tri al co u rt t o l d t h e

St at e t h at i t co u l d n o t i n t ro d u ce ev i d en ce o f a l i neu p b ecau s e Th o m as ’ s i d en t i t y as t h e

s h o o t er was n o t i n d i s p u te. 1 W e d i s ag ree an d co n cl u d e t hat t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t

v i o l at e Th o m as ’ s co n s t i tu t i o n al ri g h t s

.

Em b o d i ed wi t h in th e co n s t i t u t i o n al ri g h t t o th e co u rt s i s a cri m i nal

d efen d an t’ s ri g h t t o be p res en t an d s ee an d h ear al l t h e p ro ceed i n g s

wh i c h a r e h ad ag ai n s t h i m o n t h e t ri al b efo re t he Co u rt

. V i o l at i on s o f

t h i s d u e p ro ces s ri g h t are p res u m ed p reju d i ci al

, an d

, ab s en t a wai v er b y

t h e d efen d an t

, req u ire a n ew t ri al

. . . . T h e ri g h t t o be p res en t at t ach es at

a n y s t ag e o f a cri m i n al pro ceed i n g t h at i s cri t i cal t o i ts o u t co m e i f th e

d efen d an t ’ s p res en ce wo u l d co n t ri b u t e t o t h e fai rn es s o f t h e p ro ced u re.

Th u s

, a “ cri t i cal st ag e” o f a cri m i n al p ro ceed i n g is d efi n ed as o n e i n

wh i ch t h e d efen dan t ’ s r i g h t s m ay b e l o s t

, d efen s es wai ved

, p ri v i l eg es

cl ai m ed or wai v ed

, o r o n e i n wh i ch t h e o u t co m e o f t he c as e i s

s u b s t an t i al l y affect ed i n s o m e o t h er way

. Pro ceed i n g s d u ri ng wh i ch th e

1 Th e St at e d id n o t fi l e a b ri ef i n t h i s ap p eal

, in vi o l at i o n o f Co u rt Ru le 2 3 (b ).

(“ Ap p el l ees are en co u rag ed b u t

, ot h er th an th e St at e i n a cri m in al cas e, are n ot

req u i red t o fi l e a b ri ef. A b ri ef s h al l b e fi led by t h e St at e wh en i t i s t h e ap p el l ee i n t h e

ap p eal o f a c r i m i n a l c a s e.”). “ Al t h o ug h we d o n o t i s s u e a fi n d i n g o f co nt em p t

, we

n o t e t h at t h e d is t ri ct at t o rn ey ’ s fai lu re t o ad h ere t o t h i s ru l e i n t h e fu t u re m ay s u b ject

h i m t o a fi n d i n g o f co n t em p t .” Bo s t i c v. S t a te

, 3 4 1 G a. Ap p

. 4 0 2

, 4 0 2 n

. 1 (8 0 1 SE2 d

8 9 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

4ju ry i s s el ect ed o r m o di fi ed

, fo r ex am p l e, are a cri t i cal st ag e at wh ich th e

ri gh t t o b e p res en t at t ach es

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i on om i tt ed .) Br ewn er v. S t a t e

, 3 0 2 G a. 6

, 9 -1 0 (II) (8 0 4 SE2 d

9 4 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

T h o m a s d o es n o t ap p ear t o hav e rai sed th es e cl ai m s b efo re th e tri al co u rt

, a s

n ei t h er h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al n o r h i s am en ded m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al rai s es t h i s i s s ue,

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s p o s t -rem an d ord er d en yi n g T h o m a s ’ s m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al o n al l

rem ai n i n g g ro u n d s d oes n o t a d d res s i t

, an d t he reco rd d o es n o t i n cl u de a tran s cri pt

o f t h e p o s t -rem an d h eari n g. As d i s cu s sed m o re fu l ly b el o w, t h e res o lu t i o n o f a ri g h t

t o -b e-p res en t cl ai m req ui res a fact -i n ten s i v e i n q u i ry as t o w h et h er t h e d efen d an t

acq u ies ced t o hi s a b s e n ce, wh i ch t y p i cal ly m u s t b e d et erm i n ed b y t h e t ri al co u rt

b efo re i t can b e rev iewed b y an ap p el l at e co urt

. See Ch a mp v. S ta t e

,

_ _ _ Ga.

_ _ _ , (2 )

(c) (8 5 4 SE2 d 7 0 6) (2 0 2 1 ). Ho wev er, wh en a d efen d an t rai s es a ri g h t -t o -b e-p res en t

cl ai m t h at “ can be eas i l y reject ed b as ed o n th e ex i s t i n g r e c o r d

, ” t h e ap p el l at e co u rt

m ay ad dres s i t fo r t h e fi rs t t i m e o n ap p eal

. Id

. In t h i s cas e, Th o m as ’ s cl ai m s c a n b e

eas i l y d eci d ed b as ed o n t h e reco rd , s o we wi ll ad d res s t h em h ere.

1

. Fi rs t

, as t o t h e b en ch co n feren ce d uri n g ju ry s el ect io n

, t h e t ran s cri pt rev eal s

t h at wh en t h e t ri al co u rt as k ed p ro s p e c t i v e ju ro rs t o i n d i cat e wh et h er t h ey b el i ev ed

5t h e ir serv i ce as a ju ro r m i g ht b e affect ed b y t hei r ex p eri en ce wi th a cl o s e fri e n d o r

fam i l y m em

b er’ s co n v i ct i o n o f a cri m e, J uro r No

. 4 res po n d ed i n t h e affi rm at i v e. Th e

t ri al co u rt di rect ed Ju ro r No

. 4 to s peak t o t he s h eri ff t h en cal l ed t h e at t o rn ey s t o t h e

b en ch an d h el d a b en ch co n feren ce w i t ho u t t h e co u rt re p o r ter. Lat er, aft er al l t h e

p ro s p ect i v e j uro rs h ad l eft t h e co u rt ro om , t h e t ri al co urt s u m m ari zed t h e d i s cu s s i o n

fo r t h e reco rd :

THE COURT: [T] h e reco rd wi l l refl ect t h at d uri n g t h e co u rs e of t h e v o i r

d i re, J u ro r N o

. 4 was t eari n g u p an d wi pi n g h er ey es . Th e Co u rt as k ed

h er t o g o s p eak to th e d ep u t y

. Sh e s po k e t o t he d ep u t y an d i nd i cat ed t hat

s h e was t eari n g u p an d cry i n g b ecau s e sh e h ad a s o n wh o ’ s i ncarcerat ed

.

Co u ns el ap p ro ach ed t h e b en ch an d

, at t hat t i m e, were g i v en t h e ch oi ce

o f h av in g t h e ju ro r rem ai n as a ju ro r o r ex cu s i n g her. By ag reem en t

,

co u n s el fo r t h e St at e an d co u n s el fo r d e f en s e ag reed th at J u ro r No

. 4

wo u ld b e ex cu s ed

. Sh e was

, t h erefo re, d i rect ed t o ret u rn t o t h e s ev en t h

fl oo r an d ex cu s ed at th at p o i n t

. If t he Co u rt h as i n a c c u r a t el y s t at ed

an y t h i n g t h at o ccu rred fo r t h e reco rd , p l eas e s ay s o n o w

.

On b eh al f o f t h e St at e?

M R. FAUCETTE: No , Yo u r Ho n o r.

THE COURT: On b eh al f o f t he d efen se?

6M R. BOW LES: No , Yo u r Ho n o r.

It is cl ear t h at ju ry s el ect i o n i s a cri t i cal s t ag e o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s

, an d we

read i l y co n cl u d e th at Th o m as had a ri g h t t o b e p res en t at t h i s b en ch co n feren ce. See

Ch a mp

, s u p ra,

_

_ _ Ga. at

__ (2 ) (b ) (h o l di n g th at a d efen dan t h as t h e ri g h t t o b e

p res en t at a ben ch co n feren ce d u ri n g wh i ch a pro s p ect iv e ju r o r i s d i s cu s s ed an d

rem o v ed ). Th u s, we m

u s t n ow co n s i d er wh et her Th o m as rel i n q u is hed h i s ri g h t t o b e

p res en t

. Id

. at

_

_ _ (2 ) (c) ; Gr een v. S t a t e

, _

_ Ga. Ap p. _

_ , 4 3 6 (3 ) (8 56 SE2 d 4 2 7 )

(2 0 2 1).

[T] h e ri g h t t o b e p r e s e n t b e l o n g s t o t he d efen d an t

, an d h e i s free t o

rel i n q u i s h it if he s o ch o o s es

. Th e ri gh t t o b e p res en t i s wai v ed i f th e

d efen d an t p ers o n al l y wai v es i t i n co urt ; i f co u n s el w a i v e s i t at th e

d efen d an t ’ s ex p res s d i rect i o n ; if co un s el wai v es i t i n o p en co u rt w h i l e

t h e d efen d a n t i s p res en t ; o r i f co u n sel wai v es i t an d t h e d efen d an t

s u b s eq u en t l y acq u i es ces i n t h e wai v er. As o u r p reced en ts ex p l ai n

,

acq u i es cen ce, wh ich i s a t aci t co n s en t t o act s o r co n d it i o n s , m ay o ccu r

wh en co u n s el m ak es n o o b j ect i o n an d a d efen d an t rem ai n s s i l e n t a ft er

h e o r s h e i s m a d e a ware o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s o ccu rri ng i n h i s o r h er

ab s en ce. Acq u i es cen ce i m p li es a k n o wl ed g e o f th o s e t h in gs wh i ch are

acq u i es ced i n , as o n e can n o t acq u i es ce i n a wro n g wh i l e i g n oran t t hat

i t has b een co m

m it t ed

.

7(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed .) Bu r n ey v. S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga. 8 1 3 , 8 2 0 (3 ) (b ) (7 9 2

SE2 d 3 5 4) (2 0 1 6).

Here, T h o m as w as p res en t i n t h e co u rt ro o m d u ri n g v o ir d i re an d was t h erefo re

ab l e t o o bs erv e Ju ro r No

. 4 i n d i cat e t h at h er s erv ic e a s a ju ro r m i g h t b e affect ed by

h er b ack g ro u n d ex p eri en ce. Th o m as was t h en ab l e t o o b s erv e t h e t ri al co urt d i rect i n g

J u ro r No

. 4 t o s ee t he s heri ff, an d h e was ab l e t o s ee co u n sel ap p ro ach t h e ben ch fo r

a co nferen ce. Lat er, Th o m as was ab l e t o h ear t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s s u m m ary o f wh y J u ro r

No

. 4 h ad b een ex cu s ed

. Fi n al l y

, o n ce t h e ju ry w as s el ect ed

, t h e tri al co u rt as k ed b o th

t h e p ro secu t o r an d d efen s e co u ns el

, “ [I] s t h i s y o u r j u ry ? ” an d “ Is t h ere an y th i n g t h at

req u i res th e p res en ce of t h e rem ai n i n g ju ro rs [? ] ” Nei t her Th o m as n o r hi s at t o rn ey

rai s ed an y o b

j ect io n t o ei t h er t h e ju ro rs s el ect ed o r t h e ju ry s el ect i o n p ro ces s

.

Th erefo re, b y rem ai n i n g s i len t

, T h o m a s acq u i es ced t o t h e wai v er o f h i s ri g h t t o b e

p res en t at t h is b en ch co n feren ce. See Fo r d h a m v. St a t e

, 3 5 2 Ga. A p p

. 5 2 0

, 5 2 3 -5 2 4

( 1 ) (8 3 5 SE2 d 3 6 0) (2 0 19 ) (d efen d an t acq ui es ced t o h i s ex cl u s i o n fro m b e n c h

co n feren ces wh ere h e was p res en t du ri n g ju ry s el ect i on an d o bs erv ed p o t en t i al ju ro rs

i n d i cat e t h at t hey co ul d no t rem ai n i m p art i al an d t h ei r s u b s eq u e n t d i s m i s s al aft er

fu rt her q u es t i o n i n g b y t h e co u rt an d co u n s el at t h e b en ch ); s ee al s o Ber n i er v. S t a t e

,

3 5 4 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 9

, 3 49 -3 5 0 (4 ) (8 4 0 SE2 d 7 4 8 ) (2 0 2 0) (d efen d an t acq u i es ced t o t h e

8wai v er o f h i s p res en ce at b en ch co nferen ces wh ere h e “ s aw ju ro rs b ei n g q u es t i o n ed

an d o n t w o o ccas i o n s ex cu s ed , an d v o i ced n o o b ject i o n [.] ”).

2

. As fo r t h e s eco n d b en ch co n feren ce id en t i fi ed b y Th o m as

, th e reco rd

d em o n s t rat es t h at

, aft er t h e St at e m ov ed t o t en der i n t o ev i d en ce s ti ll i m ag es t ak en

fro m a s u rv ei l l an ce vi deo feed

, Th o m as ’ s t ri al co u n s e l o b ject ed an d as k ed t h e t ri al

co u rt fo r p erm i s s i on t o ap p ro ach t h e b en ch

. Th e tri al co u rt an d t h e at t o rn ey s t h en h el d

a b en ch co nferen ce wi t h o ut t he co u rt rep o rt er. Lat er, aft er th e j u ry was ex cu s ed fo r

t h e d ay , t h e t ri al co u rt s u m m ari zed t h e co n feren ce:

Th e reco rd wi l l refl ect t h at t h e ex h i b i t s t en d ered were st il l p h o t og rap h s

p u rp o rt ed ly fro m t h e cam era

– an d we h av e t h e vi d eo o f t he cam era t hat

h as b een ad m i t t ed

. Th e [c] o u rt d ecl i ned to ad m i t t h e s t i l l p h o t og rap h s

wi t h ou t s o m e o n e w h o can i d en t i fy wh o i t i s t h at i s d ep i ct ed i n t h o s e

s t i ll s

. Si m

p l y b ecau s e, co n s i s t en t w i t h t he ob ject i o n, i t ’ s t h e [c] o u r t ’s

v i ew t h at t h e s t i l l s t a k e n o u t o f co n t ex t

, i f y o u d o n ’ t k n o w wh at t h ei r

s i gn i fi can ce i s

, m ay h av e a t en d en cy t o d i s to rt th e ju ry ’ s d et erm i nat i o n

o f wh at t h e v i d eo i t s el f s h o ws

.

Th u s

, t h e o b

ject i o n rai sed b y Th o m as ’ s t ri al co u n s el was s u st ai ned

, an d t h e p ro ffered

i m ag es were n o t s u bm i t t ed i n t o ev i d en ce.

“ [B] en ch co n feren ces p ert ai n i n g t o p u re ly le ga l i ssue s, suc h a s the a dm issib i l i t y

o f ev i d en ce o r ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n s

, o rd i n ari l y d o n o t i m p l i cat e t h e ri gh t t o b e pres en t ,”

9Br ewn er

, s u p ra, 3 0 2 G a. at 1 0 (II). Acco rd i n g l y

, T h o m as ’ s ab s en ce fro m t h i s b en ch

co n feren ce d o es no t g i v e ri s e t o a ri g h t -t o -b e-p res en t cl ai m

. Mo reo ver, n ei t h er

T h o m a s no r hi s at t o rn ey i n d i cat ed t hat t h ey had an y co n cern s wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s

h an dl i n g o f t h e i s s u e. Co n seq u en t l y

, wi th res p ect to t h i s b en ch co n feren ce, we can

eas i l y reject Th o m as ’ s ri g h t -t o -b e-p res en t cl ai m an d co n cl u d e t h at h e acq ui es ced to

h i s ab s en ce fro m

t h is b en ch co n feren ce. See Ch a mp

, s u p ra, _

_ _ Ga. at

_

_ _ (2 ) (c).

3

. Fi n al l y

, tu rn i n g t o t h e t h i rd b en ch co n feren ce i d en t i fi ed by T h o m as

, we n o t e

t h at

, at th e en d o f th e fi rs t d ay o f t ri al

, t h e t r i a l co u rt as k ed Th o m as wh et h er h e

wi s h ed fo r t h e l awy ers t o ap pro ach t h e b en ch fo r ben ch co n feren ces o r fo r t h e co u rt

t o s en d t h e ju ry o u t o f t h e c o u rt ro o m so t h at Th o m as co u l d h ear t h e d i s cu s s i o n in

“ r e a l t i m e.” T h o m as res p o n d ed t h at h e wo u l d l i k e t o hear t h e co n v ers at i o n i n

“ real t i m e,” an d t h e t ri al co u rt a s s u r e d h i m t hat “ t h ere wi l l b e n o ap p ro ach i n g t h e

b en ch ,” an d t h e j u ry wo ul d b e s en t o u t o f t h e co urt ro om i n st ead

. Nev ert h el es s

, o n t h e

s eco n d day o f t ri al

, t h e t ri al co u rt as k ed t h e l awy ers t o ap p ro ach th e b en ch fo r a

co n feren ce. Th e co u rt l at er ap o l o g i zed t o Th o m as , s t at i n g :

M r. Th o m as

, on y es t erd ay yo u i n di cat ed t h at y o u d i d n o t wan t th e

at t o rn ey s ap p ro ach i n g t he b en ch

. I a p o l o g i ze. Th e reas o n I h ad th em

co m e u p

, I fo rg ot t h at y o u t o l d m e th at

. Bu t I h ad t h em co m e u p s o t hat

I co u l d t el l t h e St a t e t h e y weren ’ t go i n g t o sh o w t h e l i n eu p s in ce

10n o b o d y ’ s fi gh t i n g ab o u t y o u r i d en t i t y

. Bu t t h at wo n ’ t h ap p en ag ai n

. T he

t ri al co u r t t h e n as k ed i f t h ere were an y o b j ect i on s

, an d b o th th e

p ro s ecu t o r an d d efen s e co u n s el an s wered t h at t h ey h ad n on e.

Al t h ou g h T h o m as n o w co n t en d s t h at t h i s t h i rd b en ch co n feren ce was a cri t i cal

s t ag e o f t h e t ri al fo r wh i ch h e h ad a ri g h t to b e p res en t b ecau s e t h e at to rn ey s an d t h e

t ri al co u rt were d i s cu s s i n g wh at ev i d en ce was rel ev an t t o h i s cas e an d wh at d efen s es

h e was rai s i n g, th e reco rd i s cl ear t h at th e t ri al co u rt w as n o t m ak i ng a d et erm i n at i o n

ab o ut h i s d efen s es du ri n g t h e b en ch co n feren ce. In st ead , t h e t ri al co urt w as m ak i n g

a d et erm i n at i o n as t o t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y of ev i d en ce, w h i ch d o es n o t t read u p o n a

d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t to b e p res en t See Fo r t s o n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 2 Ga. 4 5 7, 45 8 (1 ) (5 3 2 SE2 d

1 0 2 ) (2 00 0 ) (“ A cri t i cal s t ag e i n a cri m i n al p ro s ecu t i o n i s o n e i n wh i ch t h e

d efen d an t ’ s ri gh ts m ay b e lo s t

, d efen s es wai v ed

, p ri vi l eg es cl ai m ed o r wai v ed

, o r o n e

i n wh i ch t he o u t co m e o f t h e cas e i s s u bs t an ti al l y affect ed i n s o m e o t h er way .”)

(ci t at i o n om i tt ed ); see al s o B r ewn er

, s u p ra 30 2 Ga. at 1 0 (II) (“ [B] en ch co n feren ces

p ert ai n i n g t o p u rel y l eg al i ss u es

, s u ch as t h e ad m i s s i bi l i t y o f ev i d en ce o r ju ry

i n s t ru ct i o n s

, ord in ari l y d o n ot i m p l i cat e th e ri g h t t o b e p res en t[.] ”). Acco rd i n g l y

, t h i s

b en ch co n feren ce d i d n o t i m p li cat e Th om as ’ s r i g h t t o b e p res en t, an d h is ab s en ce

fro m t h e co n feren ce d i d n o t am o u n t t o a d en i al o f t h at ri g h t

.

11Fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s

, we co n cl u d e th at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t v i o l at e

Th o m as ’ s ri g h t t o b e p res en t at cri t ical s t ag es o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s, an d we t h erefo re

affi rm T h o m as ’ s co n v i ct i on an d s en t en ce.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ho d

g es a n d Pi p ki n , JJ., co ncu r

.

12