Opinion ID: 1631747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: If the trial court erred in denying a continuance to allow Cantrell time to arrive on the second day of trial, we conclude such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Text: Cantrell argues the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error when it denied his motion for a continuance. At the start of the second day of trial, Cantrell's attorney informed the court that Cantrell was experiencing problems with his vehicle and would be late arriving at the courthouse. The court, after Cantrell's counsel was unable to provide further details, denied the motion for a continuance and allowed the Commonwealth to continue with its case. The Commonwealth then called one of the three officers who initially arrived on the scene. A couple of minutes after the officer's testimony began, Cantrell entered the courtroom. Cantrell now contends the court violated both his right to due process and his right to confront witnesses against him. The Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure state that a defendant shall be present at every critical stage of the trial. See RCr 8.28. In determining whether a stage is critical, [t]he appropriate question is whether there has been any interference with the defendant's opportunity for effective cross-examination. See Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 744 n. 17, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that not all constitutional errors automatically call for a reversal. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The Court recognized that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 24, 87 S.Ct. 824. Cantrell's absence occurred at the commencement of the second day of trial. He arrived within a couple of minutes of the start of the officer's testimony. Cantrell does not contest the Commonwealth's assertion that during that time the officer testified as to his current and past employment, the fact that he was involved in the investigation, and a description of what he encountered when he initially arrived at the trailer. Nor has Cantrell made any attempt to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by his absence of only a couple of minutes. In light of these circumstances, we conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.