Opinion ID: 1730477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: the trial court erred in permitting portions of the trial to take place outside the presence of carr.

Text: Carr alleges that portions of the trial, namely bench conferences and jury instruction conferences, were conducted outside his presence, thereby violating both the United States and Mississippi Constitutions. Carr points to four specific instances where he was not present. Three of those instances were off-the-record bench conferences during the trial, [5] and the fourth instance was a jury instruction conference. The jury instruction conference in question was merely a review of rulings on requested instructions the trial court had made the day before. [6] At no point in the proceedings did the defense attorneys object to Carr's absence, thereby barring such a claim at this stage in the proceedings. See Willie, 585 So.2d at 680. In regard to matters presented outside the defendant's presence, this Court has held: No important proceeding regarding a criminal trial may be held without the presence of the defendant or his counsel. Strickland v. State, 477 So.2d 1347 (Miss. 1985); Allen v. State, 384 So.2d 605 (Miss. 1980). Both need not be present; where the defendant is represented by counsel, the attorney may represent the defendant at any critical stage in the proceedings, and the defendant's absence will not violate his constitutional rights. Ford v. State, 170 Miss. 459, 155 So. 220 (1934). An exception to this general rule is where the presence of the defendant is necessary to prevent prejudice to him. Caldwell [v. State], 481 So.2d [850] at 852. Samuels v. State, 567 So.2d 843, 845 (Miss. 1990). Carr was represented by counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings, and thus Carr's presence was not constitutionally required. Moreover, Carr's absences do not implicate the exception to the general rule excusing the defendant's absence, as his absences from the bench conferences and the jury instruction colloquy did not work any prejudice to him. Accordingly, we find no merit to this claim.