Opinion ID: 2817763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: RIGHT To BE PRESENT CLAIM

Text: Love next argues that his absence from the bench conference where the trial judge and counsel discussed and excused two jurors for cause violated his right to be present at critical stages of his trial. 3 Our state and federal constitutions protect the right of a criminal defendant to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2658, 96 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1987); In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 306, 868 P.2d 835 (1994). This protection is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; our state equivalent is article I, section 22, which, in addition to a speedy public trial, also entitles defendants to appear and defend in person. Jury selection is a critical stage of a criminal trial under both the state and federal constitutions. See Irby, 170 Wn.2d at 884. But the record before us does not demonstrate a violation of Love's right to be present. Love was present in the courtroom during all of voir dire, including potential jurors' answers to questions that form the basis for challenges. Nothing suggests that Love could not consult 3 The Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits ofthis error, finding it unpreserved and outside any ofthe circumstances in RAP 2.5(a). But the record shows that Love himself tried to object to his lawyer conducting the juror challenge process. Love asked the trial judge several times to approach the bench after his lawyer exercised the for cause challenges. This preserved the error. 10 State v. Love, No. 89619-4 with his attorney about which jurors to challenge or meaningfully participate in the process. Cf id. (right to be present violated where portion of jury selection occurred between the court and counsel over e-mail, without consultation ofjailed defendant). It is a long-standing rule that we do 'not, for the purpose of finding reversible error, presume the existence of facts as to which the record is silent.' Barker v. Weeks, 182 Wash. 384, 391, 47 P.2d 1 (1935) (quoting 4 C.J. Appeal and Error§ 2666 (1916)). Love's right to be present claim also fails.