Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Presence at the Penalty Phase

Text: At two in camera hearings held before the penalty trial began, defendant personally asked to be excused from all further proceedings in the case. He explained that he was not guilty of the charged crimes and did not want to watch family members plead for [his] life. Defendant said he would become angry and might go off if forced to attend. Defense counsel objected to defendant's absence from any portion of trial, but was concerned about his apparent threat to disrupt the proceedings. The trial court concluded that defendant need not attend hearings and arguments on questions of law, but that he must attend any portion of trial in which evidence was introduced. Thereafter, defendant signed a form waiving his presence during nonevidentiary proceedings. When appearing in court on other occasions, he chose to protest his mandatory attendance by wearing jail clothes, instead of the business suit he had worn throughout the guilt phase. As a result, the waist chain was apparently visible to the jury. The court instructed the jury shortly before opening argument to disregard the physical restraints and jail clothes because they had no bearing whatsoever on [the] decision in this case. The court asked jurors whether they could follow the admonition, and they answered yes on the record. (31) Defendant now argues the court improperly prevented him from boycotting the entire penalty trial. Even assuming error occurred (see People v. Sully, supra, 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1238-1240), defendant's presence in and of itself cannot be deemed prejudicial. Indeed, counsel strongly suggested in camera that defendant was needed in the courtroom to assist in his defense. We also reject defendant's claim that he was prejudiced insofar as he appeared at the penalty phase in jail clothes and shackles. Defendant voluntarily chose to protest the court's order in this manner and is estopped from complaining on appeal about his conduct. In any event, we assume the jury followed the court's instruction and disregarded defendant's appearance in reaching its decision. (See People v. Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d 282, 291-292.)