Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/55/55massappct908.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:29:29+00:00

Document:
On appeal from his conviction for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, the defendant claims that the trial judge erred by conducting part of the trial without the defendant after the defendant failed to return from a scheduled luncheon recess. The judge waited one half-hour beyond the scheduled end of the recess, and made no effort to ascertain the reason for the defendant's absence beyond asking the prosecutor and defense counsel whether either could provide an explanation for the defendant's absence. Neither could provide such an explanation.
We agree with the defendant that, before conducting the trial in the defendant's absence, the judge should have taken more time and exerted more vigorous efforts to learn the defendant's whereabouts. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Flemmi, 360 Mass. 693 , 693-694 (1971); Commonwealth v. Kane, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 129 , 135 (1984). The judge also should have held a voir dire hearing to determine whether the defendant's absence was without cause. See Commonwealth v. Elizondo, 428 Mass. 322 , 325-326 (1998); Smith, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 1622 (2d ed. 1983 & Supp. 2002). We think a judge is required to follow these procedures even where, as here, the judge instructs the jury that they should ignore the defendant's absence and not draw any inference against him on account of it. See Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 163 Mass. 458 , 458-460 (1895).
the defendant's disappearance." Commonwealth v. Kane, supra at 135, citing Commonwealth v. Flemmi, supra.
Alan D. Campbell for the defendant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1622
 v. 
 v. 
 v.