Court Opinion

ID: 9523341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:39:30.091129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:56.421006
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Lewis, C. J.
The appellant filed a petition for rehearing. He has alleged several grounds which he believes should cause us to reconsider our decision.
After a careful study of these grounds, we feel one was not adequately covered in our opinion. The one claim of error not directly disposed of was appellant’s assigned error which .concerned whether or not the record was sufficient to show that appellant was present in the courtroom during his trial.
We agree with petitioner that it is a fundamental right that an accused individual has a right to be present in the courtroom during his trial. However, we do not share the petitioner’s view that it is encumbent upon the State to show that he was in fact present and that it is reversible error for it not to have done so. In other words, petitioner is requesting this Court to reverse the conviction because it was not shown whether or not the defendant was present.
Petitioner is not alleging that the defendant was not present, nor has he favored the Trial Court in his Motion for New Trial with any affidavits or other proof indicating such an absence. He is only alleging that the record does not adequately indicate such a presence.
While we feel that the record could be clearer on this point, there are at least three passages in the record which indicate that the defendant was present during the trial.
The transcript of the case brought before this Court states, on the day evidence was heard:
“Comes now the State of Indiana by Michael Kearns, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Vigo County, Indiana, and Jesse Hadden Bedwell, Prosecuting Attorney, Sullivan *165County, Indiana. Comes now the defendant Ronald Paul Norris in his own proper person and by his attorney Robert H. Brown, and .comes the defendant Paul Fred Ladika in his own proper person and by his attorney Warren R. Everett.
“State of Indiana introduces evidence in chief and rests.
“The defendant Ronald Paul Norris introduces no evidence in the case and rests. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
Also, during cross examination of the prosecuting witness, Quinn, the following questions were asked, with the inference being that the appellant was present:
“Q. Now you thought that Ronald Norris here was looking for you?” (Emphasis added.)
“Q. I think you testified a moment ago that you and the two defendants here had been friends before that time?” (Emphasis added.)
Quinn was later asked:
“You said that you had been friendly with both of these boys after this happened, is that correct?” (Emphasis added.)
Subsequently, during the course of the trial, the witness, Howard Taylor was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:
“Q. Are you a friend of either of the defendants?
“A. No, I don’t know them that well.
“Q. Did you have lunch with them today ?
“A. Yes sir.”
Therefore, it would seem that not only has petitioner failed to sustain his burden of showing that his rights were violated, but that the record indicates that he was indeed present during his trial, and that no violation occurred.
We are compelled to deny the petition for rehearing.
Arterburn, Hunter and DeBruler, JJ., concur; Jackson, J., concurs in result.
Note. — Reported in 240 N. E. 2d 45. Rehearing reported in 242 N. E. 2d 359,