Opinion ID: 2602242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: discussions with potential jurors at sidebar out of defendant's presence and off the record

Text: ¶ 31 Defendant insists he has a right to be present at every stage of the proceedings and that the trial court erred in conducting off-the-record discussions at sidebar with potential jurors. Defendant claims that because article I, section 12 of the Utah Constitution and section 77-1-6 of the Utah Code entitle him to be present at all stages of trial, he was entitled to be present at the off-the-record sidebar discussions, and waiver of this right may not be presumed. The State counters that defendant waived any right he had to be present at sidebar during voir dire of prospective jurors by failing to assert it. We agree. ¶ 32 Because defendant did not raise, by objection or otherwise, his right to be present during voir dire, we review whether the defendant was denied this alleged right under a plain error standard. See, e.g., State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993). In general, to establish plain error and obtain relief from an alleged error that was not properly objected to at trial, an appellant must demonstrate: (1) an error exists; (2) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (3) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined. Id. at 1208-09. ¶ 33 A defendant charged with a crime is entitled to be present at all stages of trial. Utah Const. art. I, § 12 (In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel. . . to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed[.]); Utah Code Ann. § 77-1-6(1) (1999) (In criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled: (a) To appear in person and defend in person or by counsel; ... (f) To a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district where the offense is alleged to have been committed[.]); State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986). In State v. Glenny, this court stated, The right to be present at trial is conceded and guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (Jury selection has been determined to be a part of the trial.) 656 P.2d 990, 992 (Utah 1982) (per curiam) (footnote citations omitted). We need not analyze whether these authorities are so broad as to guarantee a right to be present during sidebar discussions between the court and the prospective jurors, however. [7] We assume, without deciding the issue, for purposes of this appeal, that defendant has a right to be present at sidebar discussions with potential jurors during the jury selection process and conclude that defendant waived the right in this case. ¶ 34 We agree with the reasoning of the Wyoming Supreme Court in Campbell v. State, 999 P.2d 649 (Wyo.2000). In Campbell, the Wyoming Supreme Court determined that a defendant, who failed to object or assert her right to be present and whose attorney did attend the sidebar conferences and did not object to the court's failure to record the conferences, waived her right to be present during sidebar voir dire of potential jurors. Id. at 660-662. This case is strikingly similar to Campbell. Defense counsel for Mr. Hubbard did not assert defendant's right to be present at sidebar, nor did he object to defendant's absence at sidebar; and defense counsel, the court, the prosecutor, and the potential jurors discussed matters at sidebar off the record. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Gagnon, a trial court need not get an express `on the record' waiver from the defendant for every trial conference which a defendant may have a right to attend. Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 528, 105 S.Ct. 1482. A defendant knowing of a discussion must assert whatever right he may have to be present. Id. We noted in Glenny that the right [to be present at trial] is not absolute and may be waived by word or act of the person claiming it, 656 P.2d at 992, and under these particular circumstances, we conclude that defendant waived his right to be present at the sidebar discussions. Because we find no error, the trial court could not have committed plain error.