Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's Decision to Attend the Penalty Phase

Text: During a noon recess in the presentation of the prosecution's opening statement at the penalty phase of the trial, defendant told court staff he did not wish to be present for the remainder of the trial. The trial court subsequently mentioned this on the record outside the presence of the jury, and a second recess was taken to allow defendant to discuss the matter with his attorneys. After that recess, the court held an in camera meeting with defense counsel, at which counsel requested the court adjourn for the day to allow more discussions with defendant. Back in open court, the court adjourned the proceedings until the following morning and also advised defendant the court was concerned that his decision be made in a careful, rational, calm, and reflective manner, mentioning to him that his absence during the penalty phase was likely to make it worse for himself. Defense counsel were directed to report to the court by 8:30 the next morning, at which point the prosecution and the jurors would be notified as to when the proceedings would resume. The following morning, on the record and outside the presence of the jury, the trial court confirm[ed] for the record that at present there is no request from Mr. Rundle at this time to be absent. Defense counsel agreed, and trial proceeded with defendant present. Defendant now contends the court and defense counsel met on the morning o[f] May 25, 1989, to determine whether [defendant] was willing or able to participate in the remainder of the trial. In the absence of a record of these discussions, defendant argues, it is impossible to determine whether defendant was competent to proceed with trial, or whether some improper influence, including possible forced medication, was exerted upon defendant in order to convince him to change his decision to be absent. Defendant, however, has not established that any hearing actually occurred that morning that could have been transcribed. The trial court merely directed defense counsel to contact the court in the morning before proceedings began and report to the court defendant's decision so the jury and the prosecution could be notified when proceedings would resume. The court then confirmed on the record that defendant no longer wished to absent himself from the proceedings, which presumably is what defense counsel reported earlier that morning. Unlike other instances in which the record explicitly mentions off-the-record discussions, here there is no indication anywhere in the record, including in the settled statements on appeal, that any discussion between counsel and the court took place regarding defendant's ultimate decision to attend the proceedings. Defendant's suggestion a meeting occurred at which such a discussion transpired is no more than unsupported speculation, and he has not shown the existing record is inadequate in this respect.