Opinion ID: 2624120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: allowing a prosecution witness to remain in the courtroom

Text: At the pretrial conference, which occurred several days before the jury trial began, the prosecutor asked the trial judge to allow the case detective, Mike Daniels, to remain in the courtroom during trial to assist if the need arises. Defense counsel objected on two grounds. He did not want Daniels sitting at counsel table and having credibility imputed to him by proximity with the prosecution table. And he did not want Daniels, a material witness in this case, to be able to adjust his testimony based on what he heard while in the courtroom. The prosecutor denied having any intention of having Daniels sit at counsel table. The trial judge struck a compromise: I'm sensitive to [defense counsel's] objection, so I guess what I'm saying, because the complexity of the case and the need for him to help in the organization of exhibits, for that limited purpose, I will allow him, but to the extent during the trial that he is not needed for that purpose, then he should be outside the courtroom. So I would like you to minimize his courtroom appearance as much as you possibly can. On appeal, Francis complains that he was prejudiced by Daniels' continuous presence in close proximity to the prosecution table throughout the trial. In other words, Francis claims that the State defied the trial court's pretrial ruling. But Francis has failed to direct the court's attention to where in the record he complained either of how much time Daniels spent in the courtroom or how close Daniels sat to the prosecuting attorney. And the State suggests that no objection was raised. Sequestration of witnesses on a request of the defendant or the State is mandatory at preliminary hearings pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2903. At trial, however, sequestration is not a right but is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the absence of evidence that the presence of a witness prejudiced the defendant, the trial court's decision will not be reversed on appeal. State v. Kirtdoll, 281 Kan. 1138, Syl. ¶ 5, 136 P.3d 417 (2006); State v. Heath, 264 Kan. 557, 588-89, 957 P.2d 449 (1998). In the present circumstances, in the absence of any indication in the record when and where Daniels was in the courtroom, no prejudice to the defendant can be shown.