Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Defendant's Absence From a Jury Instruction Conference

Text: Defendant contends his federal and state constitutional rights to be present at all critical stages of his case were violated when he was absent from an informal, unreported conference between the court and counsel concerning jury instructions. The day after the informal conference the trial court held a formal conference on the record, dealing with the same subject at which defendant was present. (38) Defendant is not entitled to be present either in chambers or at bench discussions on questions of law. His presence on these occasions does not bear a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend himself against the charges. ( People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1080; People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 309-310 [168 Cal. Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149] [interpreting §§ 977 & 1043].) Consistent with this principle, an informal conference on jury instructions is not a proceeding at which a defendant's presence is constitutionally necessary. ( United States v. Sherman (9th Cir.1987) 821 F.2d 1337, 1338-1339, and cases cited; United States v. Graves (5th Cir.1982) 669 F.2d 964, 972, and cases cited.) Moreover, there was no demonstrable prejudice to defendant here because he was present at the conference held the next day which actually settled the instructions. ( People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1080-1081.) [11]