Opinion ID: 2343191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: appellant's presence at hearings (# 42)

Text: RCr 8.28 provides: The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at every critical stage of the trial including the empaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of the sentence. Appellant complains of his absence from at least four pre-trial and three post-trial hearings. Appellant, however, cites no authority for his assertion that he had a right under RCr 8.28(1) or the federal or state constitution to be present at the post-trial proceedings. In addition, each of the four dates identified in Appellant's brief was a scheduled hearing on legal arguments, and on none of those occasions was an evidentiary hearing conducted. Specifically, the trial court heard arguments from counsel: (1) on January 22, 1996, as to Appellant's motions to strike the death penalty, to dismiss the indictment because the Kentucky State Police had released the pickup trucks, to declare KRS 532.025 unconstitutional, and to determine whether Appellant was being held pursuant to the UCEA or the I.A.D; (2) on October 28, 1996, as to the Commonwealth's motion to continue the trial; (3) on June 23, 1997, as to Appellant's trial counsel's motion to withdraw because of Appellant's romantic attachment to her; and (4) on March 9, 1998, as to nothing, because the hearing was rescheduled to March 23, 1998, at which time Appellant was present. We recently held that such hearings are not critical stages of the trial at which the defendant must be present: A defendant is not required to be present during the argument of legal issues between court and counsel. Tamme v. Commonwealth, Ky., 973 S.W.2d 13, 38 (1998); Thomas v. Commonwealth, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 512, 515 (1968); Harris v. Commonwealth, Ky., 285 S.W.2d 489, 491 (1955). A defendant's absence means little when, as in the present case, the trial court's communication merely involves a question of law rather than fact. In such a case, a defendant's presence can be of no help to the defense. United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284, 1287 (8th Cir.1995). Caudill, 120 S.W.3d at 652. Accordingly, Appellant's absence from these hearings was not improper.