Court Opinion

ID: 9546505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:30:48.571489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:32.321448
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent to this decision. I know of no statutory authority which permits the trial of a defendant “in absentia” as was done in this case. Title 22 O.S. 1971, § 583, provides in part:
“If the indictment or information is for a felony, the defendant must be personally present at the trial, . . .”
Title 22 O.S.1971, § 912, provides in part:
“If the indictment or information is for a felony, the defendant must, before the verdict is received, appear in person.
In the instant case, defendant was present for the voir dire of the jury, but failed to appear on the second day of the trial. The court proceeded with the trial and subsequently issued a bench warrant. When the jury returned its verdict the defendant was not present. Defendant was subsequently apprehended on the bench warrant and judgment and sentence was imposed on June 7, 1974.
As I now view the statutes, they are mandatory and should be followed, notwithstanding the statements found in Roberts v. State, Okl.Cr., 523 P.2d 1150 (1974), in which I concurred. An analysis of the cases of this jurisdiction reveals that this Court has taken both views of the statutory requirements, but the earlier view was that they are mandatory and without the defendant being present the court loses jurisdiction. I believe that is the intent of the statutes.
Roberts cites Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, to support its view that the presence of the defendant is not required; but that case concerned the disruptive defendant and provided that the defendant could be placed in another room to prevent his further disturbance at trial. I hasten to admit that as a practical matter it is simpler to proceed with the trial holding that the defendant waived his appearance, but such holding does not comply with the mandatory provisions of the present statutes. Until the legislature changes the statutes, I believe the mandatory provisions should be followed. One step further could simplify the trial even more, i. e., submit the accused person to trial prior to his apprehension in true “absentia” form. Therefore I respectfully dissent.