Opinion ID: 1196295
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Absence From In Camera Hearing

Text: Defendant also asserts he was improperly excluded from the in camera hearing because his presence was required in order to protect [his] interests, [and] to assure him a fair and impartial trial.... ( People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 310 [168 Cal. Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149]; see generally §§ 977, subd. (b), 1043, subd. (a).) This argument simply recasts defendant's fundamental complaint that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him shackled. Under the facts, we need not resolve the question of whether the presence of an accused at such a hearing bears a `reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.' [Citation.] ( In re Lessard (1965) 62 Cal.2d 497, 506 [42 Cal. Rptr. 583, 399 P.2d 39].) Any error in the court's decision was harmless and remains so irrespective of defendant's absence from some portion of the proceedings.