Court Opinion

ID: 9743920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:50:04.744798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:45.421012
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result
DeBruler, J.
In this case, while concurring that the conviction of the defendant should be reversed and that he be discharged, I feel compelled to comment upon the procedure adopted at the beginning of the trial by the judge. The integrity of this trial was imperiled from the outset. When the case was first called, the defense counsel was seated alone at counsel table, and the defendant was seated with a companion in the spectator section of the courtroom. After the first witness had been sworn and had answered a few ques*642tions, the trial judge stopped the questioning of the witness and the following colloquy occurred:
“JUDGE: Just a minute, please, I would like for the defendant to sit here at the counsel table.
MR. ROBBINS: Come up gentlemen.
MR. KREEGAR: Your honor, may we at this time move for a separation of witnesses ?
MR. DIETZEN: We have no objection, your honor.
JUDGE: We have two defendants, is this right? I will not permit any chicanery or tricks in this court. You understand this ?
MR. ROBBINS: We are not pulling tricks, your honor. Why do you insinuate this ?
JUDGE: Because, there are two gentlemen who came to your table when I asked Mr. Duke to come to the table.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, now Mr. Duke is here. The defendant is here and if we have someone else here we want to talk with, I think this is our privilege. If the State wants a separation of witnesses, we have no objection. We may have a witness and we may not use anybody. The burden of proof is upon the State.
MR. KREEGAR: We withdraw our motion for separation of witnesses, your honor.
JUDGE: I want Mr. Duke sitting there.
MR. ROBBINS: We have Mr. Duke here with us.
JUDGE: All right. Mr. Duke is waiving trial by jury. Is this right?
MR. DIETZEN: Yes, sir, we are waiving trial by jury.
JUDGE: I didn’t mean any accusation to the attorneys about chicanery when I asked Mr. Duke to come forward and both men came forward and I am withdrawing chicanery being used.”
The trial judge had a duty at the beginning of a trial to satisfy himself that the person on trial was present in the courtroom and prepared for trial. The presence of the defendant in court should be made to clearly appear on the record. The trial judge should leave nothing to chance in this matter, but should personally address the defendant and *643require that the defendant identify himself to the court. The court may then determine the state of preparedness of the defendant. This personal identification procedure familiarizes the judge with the accused and permits the trial judge to quickly determine for the record, the presence of the defendant upon resumption of proceedings following recesses in the trial. It is the duty of the judge to conduct the trial in the presence of the defendant and to make the record reflect such fact. The modern rule is that an accused must personally present himself to the court for trial and that the trial judge may require him also to personally identify himself. Kivette v. State (1956), 230 F. 2d 749; Swingle v. U.S., 151 F. 2d 512 (10th Cir., 1945).
Note.—Reported in 298 N. E. 2d 453.