Court Opinion

ID: 9793653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:51:08.328709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:30.822376
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent, believing that this case should be remanded for a new trial.
Defendant was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Salt Lake County of aggravated sexual assault in violation of Utah Code Annotated, 1953, Sec. 76-5-405, as amended. From that conviction, sentence thereon, and the denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
The District Judge in this case, in response to a request from the jury and in the absence of the defendant, his counsel, and the prosecutor, (the State concedes that the defendant and his counsel were not voluntarily absent and the record plainly discloses that the absence was with the Court’s permission), sent in a note to the jury concerning the time of sunrise on the date of the alleged crime.
The crucial issue in this matter is whether the defendant — not his counsel — waived a constitutional right to be present at all stages of the trial or more precisely, whether the defendant waived a right to be present when the judge made a clearly improper communication to the jury by presenting to it information outside the presence of persons noted ante, which became evidence, and which is not even before us to examine. The record is silent concerning the matter of defendant’s waiver and also silent concerning the contents of the information improperly submitted (we do not know the source of the judge’s information concerning sunrise on the day in question or the time specified in the note written by him as to when sunrise occurred). Defendant claims this information could have influenced the jury as it may well have been interpreted in derogation of the testimony in defendant’s case.
We cannot because of the record’s silence on the information submitted even measure whether or not there was harmless error. As we are unable to do so, this Court should *60not by this decision permit the presumption of prejudice which inheres when a constitutional right is violated1 to be overcome in this case.2
MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of WILKINS, J.

. Constitution of Utah, Art. I, Sec. 12 stated:
“In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel . . .” (Emphasis added).

. See State v. Scandrett, 24 Utah 2d 202, 468 P.2d 639, 643 where this Court stated that the presumption can be overcome only by proving the burden of no prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt.