Opinion ID: 2301860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appellant's Request to be Excused from Trial

Text: During the trial testimony of the nurse and the pathologist, the Commonwealth introduced 18 photographs the nurse took of victim's injuries. [9] The trial court denied appellant's request to be excused from the courtroom during this testimony. Appellant contends he properly waived his right to be present during trial. See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435, 447-48 (1994) (appellant who engaged in outbursts demanding to be removed from courtroom knowingly and voluntarily waived right to be present). He notes during the nurse's and the pathologist's testimony, he laid his head flat on counsel's table, stuffed his ears with cotton, plugged his fingers in his ears, and rocked himself back and forth. He claims these attempts to avoid seeing the photographs prejudiced him. The Commonwealth argues as this was a capital trial, appellant cannot exclude himself from his trial. See Commonwealth v. Ford, 539 Pa. 85, 650 A.2d 433, 440 (1994) (When charged with a capital offense, a defendant's right to be present at his own trial is transformed into an obligation because of the gravity of the potential outcome.) (citation omitted). Distinguishing Wilson, the Commonwealth notes appellant was not disruptive and Wilson did not decide whether a defendant can request to be absent from trial. The Commonwealth contends appellant's claim of prejudice is wholly speculative. The trial court found Ford prevented appellant from excusing himself from trial; accordingly, it denied appellant's request. Pennsylvania law provides that capital defendants have an obligation to be present at their trials. Id.; see also Pa. R.Crim.P. 602(A) (The defendant shall be present at every stage of the trial ...); Commonwealth v. Diehl, 378 Pa. 214, 107 A.2d 543, 544 (1954) (presence of capital defendant necessary at trial). Petitioner's reliance on Wilson is inapposite, as Wilson was removed from his trial only after he disrupted proceedings. Wilson, at 447-48. Here, appellant did not disrupt his trial; thus, Wilson is inapplicable. Accordingly, the trial court applied Ford, and refused to permit appellant to ignore his obligation to be present at his capital trial. Thus, the trial court's refusal to allow appellant to absent himself from the courtroom does not entitle him to relief.