Opinion ID: 407646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Taking Dr. Coffer's Testimony in Appellant's Absence

Text: 84 A defendant's right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial derives from the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 579, 4 S.Ct. 202, 204, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884). 41 This right extends to all hearings that are an essential part of the trial-i.e., to all proceedings at which the defendant's presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). Compare Hopt v. Utah, supra (defendant has right to be present at impaneling of jurors); Bartone v. United States, 375 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 21, 11 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963) (court cannot impose sentence in absence of defendant); with United States v. Howell, 514 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 838, 97 S.Ct. 109, 50 L.Ed.2d 105 (1976) (no right to be present at in camera conference concerning attempted bribe of juror); United States v. Gradsky, 434 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 894, 93 S.Ct. 203, 34 L.Ed.2d 151 (1971) (right to presence does not extend to evidentiary hearing on suppression motion). We have already held that the penalty phase is an integral part of a capital trial for purposes of cross-examination. See text supra at 35-41. For similar reasons, we conclude that the capital defendant's interest in attending his sentencing hearing is as great as his interest in being present at the guilt-determining stage. Cf. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 358, 97 S.Ct. at 1204 (sentencing is critical stage of capital trial). Hence we hold that the right to be present extends to the sentencing as well as the guilt portion of a capital trial. 85 The hearing at which Dr. Coffer testified, however, was not part of the statutory sentencing proceeding but rather was an ad hoc proceeding scheduled by the trial judge after completion of the formal sentencing hearing to allow cross-examination concerning court-ordered reports. The state argues that this post-trial hearing is analogous to a suppression hearing, to which the Fifth Circuit has held the defendant's right of presence does not extend. United States v. Gradsky, supra. Accord United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 991, 93 S.Ct. 335, 34 L.Ed.2d 258 (1972). The function of the proceeding and its significance with respect to the trial, rather than the timing or sequence of events, is dispositive of the presence question, however. The psychiatric reports were evidence ordered by the court for its consideration in determining appellant's sentence. The purpose of the hearing was obviously to allow the attorneys to question the authors of those reports about the factual premises on which the reports were based, to probe further into the conclusions drawn by the two doctors, and otherwise to test the accuracy of the reports and their relevance to appellant's sentence. That the judge did not request the reports until after the jury had completed its advisory sentencing does not refute their evidentiary function nor preclude the possibility that they critically affected the sentencing decision. The judge is the ultimate decisionmaker under Florida's capital sentencing scheme, and his role in sentencing is as important as that of the jury-if not more so. See Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. at 251-53, 96 S.Ct. at 2966-67. 42 We therefore hold that the hearing at which Dr. Coffer testified was a critical stage of appellant's trial at which he had a constitutional right to be present. 86 The state argues that even if appellant was entitled to attend the hearing, his attorney waived that right. We reject this argument for two reasons. 87 First, our review of the relevant case law convinces us that presence at a capital trial is nonwaivable. The only precedents directly ruling on the issue are early Supreme Court cases holding that the right to presence in capital cases is so fundamental that the defendant cannot waive it. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455, 32 S.Ct. 250, 253, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 579, 4 S.Ct. 202, 204, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884). Accord Near v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 929, 931 (3d Cir. 1963). 43 More recently, commentators have interpreted dictum in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) as authorizing a limited exception to the no-waiver rule for defendants who wilfully disrupt their trials, 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 723 (Supp.1980 at 754 n.28); 8B J. Moore, Federal Practice P 43.02(2) at 43-9 (2d ed. 1981). 44 The state does not claim that appellant disrupted or hindered any part of his trial, however; hence such exception is inapplicable to this case. Another contemporary decision-Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 182, 95 S.Ct. 896, 909, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)-indicates that the Supreme Court may reconsider the issue of waiver of presence in a capital case. Until the Court expressly overrules its decisions in Diaz and Hopt, however, we are bound by the rule established in those cases that a capital defendant's right to presence is nonwaivable. 88 Second, even were we to find sufficient support in the Allen and Drope cases for a departure from the no-waiver rule, we would at least adhere to the knowing-and-voluntary-consent requirement established in the noncapital context. 45 Appellee does not deny that appellant was neither apprised of the hearing with Dr. Coffer nor afforded an opportunity to assert his right to attend; hence appellant did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his right to presence. 46 89 The state's final argument with respect to the Coffer testimony is that any error in denying appellant's right to hear that testimony was harmless. 47 In the district court, the state presented deposition testimony of the trial judge to the effect that he ordered the doctors' reports and testimony solely to determine the existence of mitigating factors. Relying on this testimony, the district court found that appellant could have benefited from this psychiatric evidence only if it had supported a finding of mitigating factors. Even had appellant been present at the hearing and able to aid his attorney's cross-examination of Dr. Coffer, the district court reasoned, the doctor would not likely have completely reversed his position to support the mitigating circumstances claimed by appellant; hence, appellant's absence did not prejudice him. 90 We cannot agree with the district court's approach. 48 We note again that the district court's consideration of the trial judge's testimony concerning his use of the psychiatrists' reports and their effect on his decision was improper. See text supra at 42. Thus, if the district court's finding that the psychiatrists' reports and testimony did not affect the trial judge's assessment of aggravating circumstances was supported solely by the latter's testimony, that finding could not stand. Review of the Coffer report and testimony in conjunction with the four aggravating factors found by the trial judge (see note 50 infra), however, provides independent support for the district court's finding. The only aggravating circumstance found by the trial judge to which Coffer's report and testimony were relevant was that the defendant has the propensity to commit the crime for which he was convicted. This factor was amply substantiated by appellant's own statements to Dr. Crumbley, which were related to the court at the sentencing hearing. Moreover, appellant has presented no evidence indicating that his presence at the Coffer hearing would have enabled him to rebut Coffer's testimony on that issue. Hence, whatever influence the Coffer testimony had on the trial judge's determination of aggravating factors was minimal and, in any event, harmless. We agree with the district court that appellant's absence from the Coffer hearing was significant only insofar as it may have prevented him from assisting his attorney in developing mitigating circumstances. 91 We must therefore address the district court's conclusion that the possibility appellant's absence affected the trial court's findings on mitigating factors was so insubstantial as to render his absence harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Applied in the right-to-presence context, the harmless error rule has been stated as requiring that (w)here there is any reasonable possibility of prejudice from the defendant's absence at any stage of the proceedings, a (judgment) cannot stand. United States v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066, 1080 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Estes v. United States, 335 F.2d 609, 618-19 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964, 85 S.Ct. 656, 13 L.Ed.2d 559 (1965)). Thus, whether or not appellant's absence likely prejudiced him is not the standard we must apply; rather, if there is any reasonable possibility appellant's absence and inability to respond to Dr. Coffer's testimony affected the sentencing decision, we will not engage in speculation as to the probability that his presence would have made a difference. Cf. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 317, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (where trial judge violated accused's right to confrontation by preventing defense from impeaching credibility of prosecution witness, Court would not speculate whether trier of fact would have accepted defense's impeachment theory). 49 The district court concluded appellant's absence was harmless because appellant did not demonstrate that, had he been present and able to assist his attorney at the hearing, he would have been able to effectuate a complete reversal of Coffer's opinion concerning the psychiatric mitigating factors. The court found no evidence that such would have been the case. Having reviewed the record, we simply cannot agree. Appellant has shown that during the period when he was examined by Drs. Coffer and Sprehe he was receiving anti-psychotic medication and that neither his attorney nor the doctors were aware of that fact. Dr. Coffer's evaluation of appellant's mental state at the time of the offense was based in part on his observation that, at the time of the examination, appellant exhibited no psychotic tendencies. The doctor's opinion might have differed had he known appellant was under medication. Appellant has presented additional information, such as repeated suicide attempts, of which his attorney and the doctors were not informed at the time of the sentencing hearing. It is possible that none of these facts would have changed Dr. Coffer's opinion; however, we cannot with confidence eliminate the very reasonable possibility that they would have had such effect. We therefore conclude that the trial court's violation of appellant's right to presence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 92