Opinion ID: 2457072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Right to be Present at Proceedings

Text: Mr. Knese contends that the trial court plainly erred in allowing his counsel to stipulate to the admission of three exhibits, which consisted of Mr. Knese's clothes and blood, without calling the officer who seized the items, Officer Chestnut. Mr. Knese claims that this stipulation was made without his permission and violated his right to confront Officer Chestnut, who did not testify at trial. Mr. Knese argues that, if Officer Chestnut had been called, he would have repeated his testimony from the motion hearing that Mr. Knese was fading in and out of reality when he first saw him, and that such testimony would have been relevant to determining Mr. Knese's mental capacity to commit the offense here. We are unsure how the failure of counsel to object to the admission of physical evidence implicates defendant's right to confront a witness, and this point does not amount to plain error. During voir dire, the following exchange occurred: [Prosecutor]: Hold on. The defendant has left the courtroom. The Court: I know that. [Defense Counsel]: We have no problem. We waive his appearance for this. It is unclear from the record for how long Mr. Knese was absent from the courtroom, and Mr. Knese alleges only that he was absent for part of voir dire. A defendant can waive his right to be present at all critical stages of his or her trial by voluntarily and willfully leaving the courtroom. [64] The transcript indicates that Mr. Knese voluntarily left the courtroom, and it is presumed that such an absence is voluntary and willful unless evidence suggests otherwise. [65] Mr. Knese neither claims nor shows that his absence was anything other than voluntary. Mr. Knese waived his right to be present at this stage, and no plain error occurred.