Title: State v. Cochran
Citation: 109 Ariz. 327, 509 P.2d 220
Docket Number: 2285
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 1973

109 Ariz. 327 (1973) 509 P.2d 220 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Reginald COCHRAN, Appellant. No. 2285. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. April 25, 1973. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by John J. Dickinson, Former Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Charles S. Pizzo, and Fred G. Lemberg, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty to the crime of offering to sell a narcotic drug, § 36-1002.02 A.R.S., and a sentence of not less than five nor more than seven years thereon. Although defendant raises several questions on appeal, we feel it necessary to consider only one and that is whether a defendant's attorney with the defendant voluntarily absent from the trial may waive the jury and submit the matter to the court without a jury. The facts necessary for a determination of the matter on appeal are as follows. Information was filed on 4 August 1967 charging the defendant, Reginald Cochran, and codefendant, Bob Anthony Beall, with the crime of offering to sell a narcotic drug, a felony. Trial was set for 19 October 1967, reset for 11 December 1967, and finally reset for 18 January 1968. Both defendant Cochran and his codefendant Beall were represented by the same counsel. At the start of the trial the following transpired: At the trial the codefendant Beall testified and while exculpating himself, implicated the defendant Cochran. The court found the codefendant Beall not guilty and the defendant Cochran guilty. Defendant was apprehended in 1971 and was resentenced on 19 January 1971. At this resentencing defendant contended that he did not voluntarily absent himself from the trial from 18 January 1968 until January 1971 when he was apprehended. The trial court found that he did voluntarily absent himself and we agree. A defendant who voluntarily absents himself from trial may be tried in absentia. State v. Tacon, 107 Ariz. 353, 488 P.2d 973 (1971), petition for cert. dismissed, Tacon v. Arizona, 351 U.S. 410, 93 S. Ct. 998, 35 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1973) (a case in which the defendant voluntarily absented himself from trial and a jury trial was held in his absence). Our Constitution states: And we have stated that a waiver of a jury trial is valid only if expressly and intelligently made by the defendant. State v. Little, 104 Ariz. 479, 455 P.2d 453 (1969). And: We do not believe that a waiver of a jury trial is a right that can be waived by counsel without the express permission or ratification by the defendant and therefore the waiver was ineffective. Judgment reversed and the matter remanded for new trial. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur. [1] It is noted that the cited cases, Little and Jelks, were decided after the trial court had ruled in this matter.