Opinion ID: 2515784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Absence During Readback of Testimony

Text: Defendant contends he was denied his rights to be present during trial and to be assisted by counsel during a critical stage of the trial when the trial court allowed rereading of certain testimony in his absence and without obtaining a waiver of his presence. In so doing, he asserts, the trial court violated sections 977 [58] and 1043 [59] , article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, and the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. During deliberations, the jury asked to hear the testimony of Mary Joseph, an identification technician for the Fresno County Sheriff's Department, regarding fingerprints found on the burned car (the Pontiac Bonneville that Ray Juarez and Jeffrey Spradlin had stolen) and on Richard Avila's 1964 Chevrolet Impala. After a discussion between the court and all parties, the court proposed to go to the jury room with the court reporter and tell the jury that there was no testimony in reference to fingerprints on the burned car, and that the court reporter would read the testimony from Mary Joseph in reference to fingerprints on the Impala. Defendant did not object to this proposal. Shortly thereafter, in the jury room, in the presence of the court reporter, the court told the jury the following: You asked for two things. You asked for Mary Joseph's testimony in reference to fingerprints on the burned car. There is no such testimony. The second thing you asked for was Mary Joseph's testimony in reference to the fingerprints on the '64 Impala. That testimony has been pulled and our court reporter will be reading that back to you as soon as I leave. While she is reading to you, you may not deliberate or discuss the case in her presence. You need to wait until she finishes and has left the room, and then you may resume your deliberations. Defendant's absence from the readback of Mary Joseph's testimony violated section 977, subdivision (b)(1), because defendant did not execute in open court a written waiver of his right to be personally present. But the error was statutory only and thus `is reversible only if it is reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to defendant absent the error.' [Citation.] ( People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 21, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, 117 P.3d 591.) Because defendant provides no basis on which we could conclude the result of his trial would have been different had he been present at the readback (see People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1121, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478), we find the violation of section 977 was harmless. For the same reason, his absence at the readback did not offend his constitutional rights to due process or a fair and reliable trial.