Opinion ID: 1767510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Error Patent

Text: Defendant asserts as error patent that the trial court denied in open court his motion to suppress his confession without the presence of either his attorneys or himself. C.Cr.P. 834 addresses the right of a defendant to be present at the making, hearing and ruling on preliminary motions directed solely to the court. This article provides in part: The defendant has a right to be present, but his presence is not essential to the validity of any of the following proceedings in a criminal prosecution: (1) The making, hearing of, or ruling on a preliminary motion or application addressed to the court. Thus, even though it is better procedure for the defendant and his counsel to be present at rulings on preliminary motions, C.Cr.P. 834(1) does not require their presence. C.Cr.P. 831 is inapplicable to the present case for it does not pertain to preliminary motions. [12] Accordingly, we find no error in the trial judge's ruling on the preliminary motion outside of the presence of defendant and his attorneys. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. LEMMON, J., concurs in the result, not necessarily agreeing that the defendant can raise, for the first time on appeal, new grounds for the suppression of a confession. DENNIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with reasons.