Opinion ID: 1443930
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to be present at all critical stages

Text: Kirksey argues that his right to be present during all critical stages of the criminal proceeding was violated when the three-judge panel reconvened for further deliberations. Kirksey contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because appellate counsel failed to raise this argument on appeal. We disagree. The right to be present is rooted in the Confrontation Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution. The confrontation aspect arises when the proceeding involves the presentation of evidence. United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526-27, 105 S.Ct. 1482, 1484-85, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985). The due process aspect has been recognized only to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by the defendant's absence. Id. The right to be present is subject to harmless error analysis. Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117 n. 2, 104 S.Ct. 453, 455 n. 2, 78 L.Ed.2d 267 (1983). The defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the absence. See People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522, 280 Cal.Rptr. 631, 681, 809 P.2d 290, 341 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1038, 112 S.Ct. 887, 116 L.Ed.2d 790 (1992). The three-judge panel that sentenced Kirksey reconvened in order to discuss the impact of a Ninth Circuit opinion declaring Nevada's depravity of mind aggravating factor unconstitutionally vague. [14] The panel merely confirmed what it had already stated at the conclusion of the penalty hearingthat any one of the aggravating circumstances was sufficient to support the death sentence. The prosecutor was not present and the panel did not consider any new evidence. Under the circumstances, Kirksey's right to be present was not violated and his defense was not prejudiced by his absence. Accordingly, we concluded that Kirksey has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that this contention would have succeeded on appeal.