Court Opinion

ID: 9648011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:58:51.639312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:04.771004
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I cannot agree with the Majority’s conclusion that Appellant did not knowingly waive his right to be present at trial. Instead, I believe that the trial court correctly determined that Appellant “expressly waived his presence at trial when he was unable to obtain his own way with regard to counsel and dismissal of the charges.” Trial Court Opinion dated August 9, 1996 at 6. Accordingly, Appellant forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
A defendant may waive his constitutional rights to be present at trial and to confront witnesses, either by way of an express waiver or because of his conduct. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973). In Allen, the criminal defendant engaged in speech and conduct so noisy, disorderly, and disruptive that a trial was “wholly impossible.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. at 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057. The defendant objected to court appointed counsel and indicated that he wanted to act in his own defense. After that, he continued to be disrespectful and threatened to kill the judge. The trial court warned the defendant that if his outbreaks continued, it would remove him from the trial. The defendant responded, “There’s not going to be no trial either.” Id. at 340, 90 S.Ct. 1057. The defendant continued with his disruptive conduct. Finally, after repeated warnings that he would be removed from the courtroom, the trial court had the defendant removed. The Supreme Court explicitly held that
[A] defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so disor*264derly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the court room.
Id. at 343, 90 S.Ct. 1057.
In Taylor, supra, the defendant appeared for trial in the morning, but did not return to the courtroom in the afternoon. The trial court recessed the trial until the following morning, but the defendant did not appear. The trial court continued the trial, after advising the jury that it could not infer guilt from petitioner’s absence. The Supreme Court held that defendant’s voluntary absence from trial was an effective waiver of a known privilege or right. In so holding, the Supreme Court did not adopt a standard that would require the trial court to demonstrate that it had expressly warned the defendant that he had a right to be present, or that the trial would continue in his absence and by that effectively foreclose defendant’s right to testify and to confront personally the witnesses against him. Instead, the Supreme Court suggested a review of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the defendant’s absence was knowing and intelligent. The Supreme Court stated
It is wholly incredible to suggest that petitioner, who was at liberty on bail, had attended the opening session of his trial, and had a duty to be present at the trial ... entertained any doubts about his right to be present at every stage of his trial. It seems equally incredible to us ... ‘that a defendant who flees from a court room in the midst of trial— where judge, jury, witnesses and lawyers are present and ready to continue—would not know that as a consequence the trial would continue in his absence.’
Taylor, 414 U.S. at 20, 94 S.Ct. 194 (citations omitted.)
I see no difference in this case where the Appellant refused to attend the trial unless the court appointed new counsel and the Taylor situation in which a defendant was present for trial one day and then failed to appear during subsequent days of trial. I also see no real distinction between Appellant’s refusal to participate in the trial unless he obtained new counsel, and the disruptive behavior in Allen, which led to the defen*265dant’s removal from the courtroom. As in Allen, Appellant made the deliberate decision to absent himself from trial, foregoing his right to a jury trial. Obviously, if the defendant is not present at the trial, he cannot testify and cannot confront the trial witnesses. See also, Commonwealth v. Sullens, 533 Pa. 99, 619 A.2d 1349 (1992) (holding that where a defendant failed to appear at trial, he waived the right to be present because there was no question that defendant knew the date of the proceeding); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 551 Pa. 593, 712 A.2d 735 (1998) (deciding that defendant who was present for one day of trial and absconded the next day, knowingly waived right to be present at trial).
From a thorough review of the relevant record, Appellant clearly said that he did not want to be in the courtroom, and the trial court appropriately allowed the Appellant to absent himself. Appellant was aware of his right to be present at trial and repeatedly sought to waive it. He specifically stated that he waived his rights and that if counsel continued to represent him, he would “plead the fifth.” (Notes of Testimony, March 12, 1996, N.T. at 31). He even stated:
You have violated my rights. I have the right to waive my rights. I want to leave. Take me back. You guys do whatever you want without me. I wanted a fair representation. I can’t get it. You violated my rights. Why should I get a jury trial? You go ahead and do whatever you want to do.
(Id. at 32-33). The trial court specifically asked Appellant if he wanted to be present for the trial, and the Appellant replied, “You can have a trial without me.” (Id. at 32).
These excerpts amply show that the Appellant made the deliberate decision to waive his constitutional rights, and that the trial court ensured that the Appellant knew that the trial would proceed without him. Moreover, the trial did not begin until the next day, giving the Appellant plenty of time to “cool off’, reconsider and appear at trial. (Id. at 37-38). Further, the trial court properly instructed the jury that they could not draw any negative inference from the Appellant’s failure to testify or his failure to appear at trial, and the Appellant was *266in the court room when the jury returned its verdict. (Id. at 80-81, 89).
In light of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant did not suffer any prejudice from the trial court’s failure to conduct an exhaustive colloquy, which it was impossible to do because of Appellant’s behavior. The record appears clear that Appellant would have insisted upon not attending the trial unless the trial court appointed new counsel, and a lengthy colloquy would not have changed this Appellant’s mind. Under the circumstances presented here, requiring the trial court to engage in a protracted colloquy in the face of an uncooperative and disruptive defendant would serve no purpose.
For these reasons, I would affirm the decision of the Superior Court.
CASTILLE, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.