Opinion ID: 2638434
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant allegedly was tranquilized during voir dire

Text: Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error by conducting voir dire while he was under the influence of tranquilizers to such an extent that we should conclude he was not present. (See § 977, subd. (b) [The accused shall be personally present.]; Riggins v. Nevada (1992) 504 U.S. 127, 112 S.Ct. 1810, 118 L.Ed.2d 479.) [8] He contends the trial court characterized him as looking totally droopy and thus should have stopped the proceedings. He is mistaken: it was defense counsel who so characterized defendant. The trial court disagreed with counsel's assessment, noting it did not see a great difference in [defendant's] appearance. The trial court discussed the matter with defense counsel, Philip Barnett, and counsel assured the court that defendant was mentally and physically able to participate despite having taken some tranquilizers two nights before to help him sleep and another medicine the next night. The trial court assured defendant that if he felt ill, uncomfortable or dizzy, it would halt the proceedings. Later that afternoon, defendant stated he felt all right. We thus reject the claim that the trial court improperly allowed voir dire to proceed when defendant was severely impaired by his medication with tranquilizers, for there is no substantial evidence his medication had a palpable effect on him.