Court Opinion

ID: 9601700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:49:04.317635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:57.243668
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge,
dissenting.
Notwithstanding my concurrence in Roberts v. State, supra, I now feel compelled to follow my position stated in Warren v. State, supra. I believe the statute means what it says and should be followed, as stated in my dissent to Warren, supra. The State possesses the mechanics and authority to obtain the presence of the defendant and to assure his future participation in the trial. That is what should have been done in this case. It is too easy to move from one position of permitting a trial in absen-tia to yet another position that will subsequently allow the trial without the defendant’s presence at any stage of the trial. Therefore, I respectfully dissent to this decision.