jury because of the sickness of a juror,31 or because of inability to agree; :32 when witnesses are sworn and put under the rule;38 during the examination of a witness as to competency;34 during argument and determination as to the competency of a witness;35 or during the examination of witnesses or the reception of other evidence,36 and it has been held that this error is not cured by excluding the evidence taken in defendant's absence and by causing it to be repeated in his presence,37 although there are cases which hold the contrary.38 Defendant should also be present during the argument of counsel;39 when the case is finally submitted to the jury:40 when the court charges the jury and when 31. State v. Smith, 44 Kan. 75, 24 P 84, 21 AmSR 266, 8 LRA 774. Discharge of jury in absence of accused as acquittal see infra § 2568. 32. State v. Wilson, 50 Ind. 487, 19 AmR 719; State v. Holloway, 57 Or. 162, 110 P 791 [den reh 110 P 397]. Discharge of jury in absence of accused as acquittal see infra § 2568. 33. Bearden v. State, 44 Ark. 331. 34. Simpson v. State, 31 Ind. 90; Peo. v. McNair, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 608. 35. Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511, 10 S 106; State v. Sutter, 71 W. Va. 371, 76 SE 811, 43 LRANS 399. 36. Ala.-Boyd v. State, 153 Ala. 41, 45 S 591. Cal.-Peo. v. Kohler, 5 Cal. 72. Kan.-State v. Moran, 46 Kan. 318, 26 P 754. Miss.-Watkins v. State, 110 Miss. 438, 70 S 457; Doss v. State, 104 Miss. 598, 61 S 690; Sadler v. State, 98 Miss. 401, 53 S 783; Stanley v. State, 97 Miss. 860, 53 S 497; McLendon v. State, 96 Miss. 250, 50 S 864; Booker v. State, 81 Miss. 391, 33 S 221, 95 AmSR 474; Garman v. State, 66 Miss, 196, 5 S 385; Rolls v. State, 52 Miss. 391. Mont-State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 P 1026. Tenn.-Richards v. State, 91 Tenn. 723, 20 SW 533, 30 AmSR 907. Tex.-Burton v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 493, 81 SW 742. Utah. State v. Mannion, 19 Utah 505, 57 P 542, 75 AmSR 753, 45 LRA 638. Va.-Jackson v. Com., 19 Gratt. (60 Va.) 656. W. Va.-State v. Stevenson, 64 W. Va. 392, 62 SE 688, 19 LRANS 713; State v. Detwiler, 60 W. Va. 583, 55 SE 654; State v. Sheppard, 49 W. Va. 582, 39 SE 676; State v. Greer, 22 W. Va, 800. Reading testimony to jury after retirement see infra § 2559. 37. Booker v. State, 81 Miss. 391, 33 S 221, 95 AmSR 474; State V. Greer, 22 W. Va. 800. 38. Boyd v. State, 153 Ala. 41, 45 $ 591; Vanderford v. U. S., 126 Ga. 753, 55 SE 1025; State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 P 1026; Cason v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 220, 106 SW 337. 39. Tiller v. State, 96 Ga. 430, 23 SE 825. Compare State v. Paylor, 89 N. C. 539 (which was to the contrary in a prosecution for a felony not capital). they are recharged or given additional instructions after retirement; .41 and when sentence is pronounced;42 but it has been held that this rule is not violated where the judge, in the absence of defendant, communicates with the jury as to matters which do not affect the interest of defendant which the jury are to consider.43 [ 2068] (b) Preliminary and Formal Proceedings in General. Defendant's presence is not necessary during proceedings which are no part of the trial, but are merely preliminary or formal proceedings or motions which do not affect his interests.44 Thus it has been held that defendant's presence is not necessary at the hearing and determination of a Ky.-Bailey v. Com., 71 SW 632, Fla. 41, 37 S 850; Thomas v. State, 24 KyL 1419; Meece v. Com., 1 KyL 47 Fla. 99, 36 S 161. 337. Mo.-State v. Meagher, 49 Mo. A. 571. 246. N. M.-Terr. v. Lopez, 3 N. M. 104, Wash.-State v. Shutzler, 82 Wash. Rule not violated.—(1) Where 43. Dekelt v. Peo., 44 Colo. 525, 40. Allen v. Com., 86 Ky. 642, 699 P 330; Holland v. Peo., 30 Colo. SW 645, 9 KyL 784; McClernand v. Com., 12 SW 148, 11 KyL 301; Brewer v. Com., 8 SW 339, 10 KyL 122. 41. Ark.-Pearson V. State, 119 Ark. 152, 178 SW 914; Stroope v. State, 72 Ark. 379, 80 SW 749; Kinnemer v. State, 66 Ark. 206, 49 SW 815. Ga-Bonner v. State, 67 Ga. 510; Ind.-Roberts V. State, 111 Ind. 44. U. S.-Dowdell v. U. S., 221 U. Ark. Hydrick v. State, 103 Ark. 4, Cal.-Peo. v. Witt, 170 Cal. 104, Dak. Terr. v. Gay, 2 Dak. 125, 2 Fla. Russell v. State, 65 Fla. 312, Ill.-Nagel v. Peo., 229 Ill. 598, 606, 82 NE 315 [cit Cyc]. Ind.-Jones v. State, 152 Ind. 318, 53 NE 222. Kan.-State v. Kendall, 56 Kan. 238, 42 P 711. Ky-McClernand v. Com., 12 SW 148, 11 KyL 301; Richey v. Com., 8 SW 913, 10 KyL 181. La.-State v. Wyatt, 50 La. Ann. 1301, 24 S 335; State v. Pierre, 39 La. Ann. 915, 3 S 60. Mass.-Lizotte v. Dloska, 200 Mass. 327, 86 NE 774. Miss. Swor v. State, 81 Miss. 453, 33 S 223. Mo.-State v. Long, 209 Mo. 366, 108 SW 35; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 23, 95 SW 235 [writ of error dism 205 U. S. 483, 27 SCt 582, 51 L. ed. 890]. Mont.-State v. Little Whirlwind, 22 Mont. 425, 56 P 820; State v. Spotted Hawk, 22. Mont. 33, 55 P 1026. Nebr.-Miller v. State, 29 Nebr. 437, 45 NW 451. N. Y.-Peo. v. Vail, 6 AbbNCas 206, 57 HowPr 81. N. C.-State v. Bowman, 80 N. C. Or.-State v. Abrams, 11 Or. 169, 8 P 327. 432. Philippine.-U. S. v. Beecham, 23 Philippine 258. S. C.-State v. Atkinson, 40 S. C. 363, 18 SE 1021, 42 AmSR 877. Tex.-Bullock v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 419, 165 SW 196; Chapman v. State, (Cr.) 42 SW 559. Utah.-State v. Woolsey, 19 Utah 486, 57 P 426. Va.-Gilligan v. Com., 99 Va. 816, 37 SE 962; Boswell v. Com., 20 Gratt. (61 Va.) 860. Wash.-State v. Duncan, 7 Wash. 336, 35 P 117, 38 AmSR 888. W. Va.-State v. Hoke, 76 W. Va. 36, 84 SE 1054; State v. Haddox, 50 W. Va. 222, 40 SE 387. Wis.-Vogel v. State, 138 Wis. 315, 119 NW 190. [a] Illustrations. — It has been held that defendant's presence is not necessary: (1) At the hearing and determination of a motion to compel the prosecution to elect between counts. State v. Kendall, 56 Kan. 238, 42 P 711. (2) On appointment of counsel to assist the prosecution. Hall v. State, 132 Ind. 317, 31 NE 356. (3) On fixing the day for trial. Peo. v. Rader, 136 Cal. 253, 68 P 707; Peo. v. Arberry, 13 Cal. A. 749, 114 P 411; State v. LeBlanc, 116 La. 822, 41 S 105; State v. Clark, 32 La. Ann. 558; State v. Outs, 30 La. Ann. 1155; State v. Abrams, 11 Or. 169, 8 P 327; Oliver v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 140, 159 SW 235, (4) On the hearing of an application for or on the granting of attachments for witnesses. State v. Simien, 36 La. Ann. 923; State v. Clark, 32 La. Ann. 558. (5) When the clerk puts the names in the jury box preparatory to drawing the jury. Bearden v. State, 44 Ark. 331. (6) When the veniremen are drawn. Ragland v. State, 125 Ala. 12, 27 S 983; Stoball v. State, 116 Ala. 454, 23 S 162; Hurd v. State, 116 Ala. 440, 22 S 49 demurrer to the indictment or information,45 of a motion to quash the same,46 or of a plea in abatement;47 or of a motion for a change of venue,48 for a continuance, for leave to file an information,50 to summon witnesses,51 to amend the information,52 for a new trial,53 or in arrest of judgment;54 or when the judge signs the record of the day's proceedings.55 It has also been held that defendant's presence is not necessary when the record is corrected to accord with the facts.56 [§ 2069] (c) View by Jury. It is generally held that defendant is entitled to be present when the jury are taken to view the place of the crime, on 993; Oliver v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 140, 169 SW 235; Cordova v. State, 6 Tex. A. 207: Pocket v. State, 5 Tex. A. 552. (7) When the judge signs the warrant appointing a day for execution. Peo. v. Witt, 170 Cal. 104, 148 P 928. (8) When bills of exceptions are presented to and signed by the judge. Thurman v. Com., 107 Va. 912, 60 SE 99. [b] Order to summon jury-An order authorizing the sheriff to summon a jury to be present at a subsequent date fixed for the trial of accused is a mere administrative function of the court, and is not a part of the trial of the cause at which the presence of accused is required. Milton v. State, 134 Ala. 42, 32 S 653; Ammons v. State, 65 Fla. 166, 61 S 496; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 23, 95 SW, 235 [writ of error dism 205 U. S. 483, 27 SCt 582, 51 L. ed. 890]; Logan v. State, 131 Tenn. 75, 173 SW 443: Oliver V. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 140, 159 SW 235; Vogel v. State, 138 Wis: 315, 119 NW 190. [c] When jury are called and sent out.-(1) Defendant's presence is not necessary when the jurors who have been sent out for the night or to their meals are brought back and sent to their room. Richey v. Com., 8 SW 913, 10 KyL 181; Jones V. Com., 79 Va. 213; Lawrence v. Com, 30 Gratt. (71 Va.) 845. (2) Where, after dinner recess, the jury called and answer to their names before defendant is brought into court, and, on his absence being discovered, he is brought in and the jury again called, there is no ground for versal. McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 66, 36 S 175. are re [d] While the jury are out considering their verdict defendant need not be present in court. State v. McGraw, 35 S. C. 283, 14 SE 630. [e] A nolle prosequi does not require the presence or consent of accused. Lizotte v. Dloska, 200 Mass. 327, 86 NE 774. 45. State V. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 P 1026; Miller v. State, 29 Nebr. 437, 45 NW 451; State v. Woolsey, 19 Utah 486, 57 P 426. 46. Dak. Terr. V. Gay, 2 Dak. 125, 2 NW 477. Ind. Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 539, 1 NE 491. La.-State v. Pierre, 39 La. Ann. 915, 3 S 60. Mont.-State v. Little Whirlwind, 22 Mont. 425, 56 P 820. Nebr. Miller v. State, 29 Nebr. 437, 45 NW 451. N. Y.-Peo. V. Vail, 6 AbbNCas 206, 57 How Pr 81. S. C.-State v. Atkinson, 40 S. C. 363, 18 SE 1021, 42 AmSR 877. But see State v. Clifton, 57 Kan. 448, 46 P 715 (holding that hearing a motion to quash an information for felony is a part of the trial, during which defendant must be personally present). 47. Miller v. State, 29 Nebr. 437, 45 NW 451. 48. See supra § 326. 49. See supra § 940. the ground that this is the taking of evidence and a part of the trial.57 This right, however, is in the nature of a special privilege which is for the benefit of accused alone,58 and hence it has been held that it is not essential that he should be present,59 and that the privilege may be waived expressly by counsel in defendant's presence, or by the failure of the accused to request or to avail himself of the privilege of accompanying the jury, or by refusing to go with the jury.62 [§ 2070] (d) Rendition of Verdict. In almost all jurisdictions defendant must be present, in felony cases, when the verdict is rendered 63 or 50. Peo. v. Arberry, 13 Cal. A. 749, 114 P 411; State v. Little Whirlwind, 22 Mont. 425, 56 P 820; State v. Hasledahl, 3 N. D. 36, 53 NW 430. [a] Extending time. Since the statute does not require that accused be present when the information is filed, he need not be present when an order is made extending the time for filing a new information. Peo. V. Arberry, 13 Cal. A. 749, 114 P 411. 51. Jones v. State, 152 Ind. 318, 53 NE 222. 52. State v. Beatty, 45 Kan. 492, 25 P 899; State v. Pierre, 39 La. Ann. 915, 3 S 60; State v. Dominique, 39 La. Ann. 323, 1 S 665. 53. See infra § 2763. See infra § 2818. 54. 55. Weatherman v. Com., 91 Va. 796, 22 SE 349. 56. Ark.-McNamara v. State, 60 Ark. 400, 30 SW 762. But see Baker v. State, 39 Ark. 180 (holding that a nunc pro tunc entry, showing that the prisoner waived formal arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty, cannot be made in the absence of the prisoner); Green v. State, 19 Ark. 178 (holding that accused must be present when an amendment is made to show that the indictment was returned into court). Ga.-Camp v. State, 91 Ga. 8, 16 SE 379. Iowa.-State v. Westfall, 49 Iowa 328. Wis.-Sasse v. State, 68 Wis. 530, 32 NW 849. Wyo.-Jenkins v. State, 22 Wyo. 34, 134 P 260, 135 P 749. 58. Shuler v. State, 105 Ind. 298, 4 NE 870, 55 AmR 211; State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311. 59. Ariz.-Elias v. Terr., 9 Ariz. 1, 76 P 605, 11 AnnCas 1153. Ind. Shular v. State, 105 Ind. 289, 4 NE 870, 55 AmSR 211. Kan.-State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311. Mass.-Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 496, 20 AmD 491. N. Y.-Peo. v. Thorn, 156 N. Y. 286, 50 NE 947, 42 LRA 368 [overr in effect Peo. v. Palmer, 43 Hun 397 (aff 109 N. Y. 413, 17 NE 213, 4 Am SR 477)]; Eastwood v. Peo., 3 Park. Cr. 25 [aff 14 N. Y. 562]. Okl.-Hays v. Terr., 7 Okl. 15, 54 P 300, 52 P 950. Or.-State v. Ah Lee, 8 Or. 214. Pa.-Com. v. Van Horn, 188 Pa. 143, 41 A 469. Utah.-State v. Mortensen, 26 Utah 312, 73 P 562, 633. Wash.-State v. Lee Doon, 7 Wash. 308, 34 P 1103. 60. Neal v. State, 32 Nebr. 120, 49 NW 174. State, 114 61. Ark.-Whitley Ark. 243, 169 SW 952. V. Cal.-Peo. v. Mathews, 139 Cal. 527, 73 P 416; Peo. v. White, 20 Cal. A. 156, 128 P 417. Fla. Haynes v. State, 71 Fla. 585, La.-State v. Thomas, 111 La. 804, 72 S 180. 35 S 914. Okl.-Philips v. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 353, 136 P 776. Or. State v. McDaniel, 70 Or. 232, 140 P 993. 57. Ark.-Whitley V. State, 114 Ark. 243, 169 SW 952; Benton V. State, 30 Ark. 328. Cal.-Peo. v. Lowrey, 70 Cal. 193, 11 P 605; Peo. v. Jones, 11 P 501; Peo. v. Bush, 68 Cal. 623, 10 P 169; Peo. v. Akens, 25 Cal. A. 373, 143 P 795; Peo. v. White, 20 Cal. A. 156, 128 P 417. Compare Peo. v. Bonney, 19 Cal. 426 (holding that it is not error to permit the jury to view the scene of the crime without the presence of the prisoner). Ida.-State v. McGinnis, 12 Ida. 336, 85 P 1089 [disappr State v. Reed, 3 Ida. (Hasb.) 754, 35 P 706]. Ky. Rutherford v. Com., 78 Ky. 639, 1 KyL 410. 46. La.-State v. Bertin, 24 La. Ann. Mich.-Peo. v. Auerbach, 176 Mich. 23, 141 NW 869, AnnCas1915B 557. Miss.-Foster V. State, 70 Miss. 755, 12 S 822. Mont.-State v. Landry, 29 Mont. 218, 74 P 418. Nebr.-Neal v. State, 32 Nebr. 120, 49 NW 174; Carroll v. State, 5 Nebr. 31. N. C.-State v. Graham, 74 N. C. 646, 21 AmR 493. Oh. Hotelling v. State, 3 Oh. Cir. Ct. 630, 2 Oh. Cir. Dec. 366. Tex.-Smith v. State, 42 Tex. 444; Riggins v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 472, 60 SW 877. Ind. Shular v. State, 105 Ind. 298, 4 NE 870, 55 AmR 211. Kan.-State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311. Mich.-Peo. v. Auerbach, 176 Mich. 23, 141 NW 869, AnnCas1915B 557. Nebr.-Neal v. State, 32 Nebr. 120, 49 NW 174. N. Y.-Peo. v. Thorn, 156 N. Y. 286, 50 NE 947, 42 LRA 368. Oh. Reighard v. State, 22 Oh. Cir. Ct. 340, 22 Oh. Cir. Dec. 382. Okl.-Starr V. State, 5 Okl. Cr. 440, 115 P 356. Or.-State v. Moran, 15 Or. 262, 14 P 419; State v. Ah Lee, 8 Or. 214. Wis. State v. Sasse, 72 Wis. 3, 38 NW 343. Wyo.-Jenkins v. State, 22 Wyo. 34, 134 P 260, 135 P 749. [a] Accused who is at liberty on bail during the trial may waive his right to accompany the jury in taking a view of the place of the alleged crime. Peo. v. Auerbach, 176 Mich. 23, 141 NW 869, AnnCas1915B 557. 62. State v. Buzzell, 59 N. H. 65; Blythe v. State, 4 Oh. Cir. Ct. 435, Oh. Cir. Dec. 636; Hays v. Terr., 7 Okl. 15, 54 P 300, 52 P 950. 63. U. S.-Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 35 SCt 582, 59 L. ed. 969. Ala. Harris v. State, 153 Ala. 19, 49 S 458; Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 41 S 630: Dix v. State, 147 Ala. 70, 41 S 924; Cook v. State, 60 Ala. 39, 31 AmR 31; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325; State v. Hughes, 2 Ala. 102, 36 AmD 411; Whitehurst v. State, 3 Ala. A. 88, 57 S 1026. Ark. Sweeden V. State, 19 Ark. 205; Cole v. State, 10 Ark. 318; Sneed v. State, 5 Ark. 431, 41 AmD 102. amended.64 Unless there may be and has been a waiver of this right,65 if a verdict is received in defendant's absence and the jury are discharged, there is a mistrial; and the error is not cured by reassembling the jury after they have been discharged and having them assent to and return the verdict in defendant's presence. It has been held that, in cases of felonies less than capital, defendant has a right to be present when the verdict is returned, but that his presence is not essential." 67 68 [§ 2071] (3) (3) Waiver; Voluntary Absence. Some of the courts have held that the right to be present during the trial of an indictment for felony cannot be waived by defendant in a capital case,69 or in a felony case not capital where defendant is in Cal.-Peo. v. Beauchamp, 49 Cal. | 736. 41. Colo. Smith v. Peo., 8 Colo. 457, 8 P 920; Green v. Peo., 3 Colo. 68. Fla.-Summeralls v. State, 37 Fla. 162, 20 S 242, 53 AmSR 247. Ga. Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395, 46 SE 897; Nolan v. State, 55 Ga. 521, 21 AmR 281; Lyons v. State, 7 Ga. A. 50, 66 SE 149. Ill-Nomaque v. Peo., 1 Ill. 145, 12 AmD 157. Kan. State v. Muir, 32 Kan. 481, 4 P 812. Ky.-Temple v. Com., 14 Bush 769, 29 AmR 442; McClernand v. Com., 12 SW 148, 11 KyL 301. La-State v. Christian, 30 La. Ann. 367; State v. Ford, 30 La. Ann. 311. Miss. Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 S 554, 20 LRANS 509; Finch v. State, 53 Miss. 363; Rolls v. State, 52 Miss. 391; Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 716. Mo.-State v. Beedle, 180 SW 888; State v. Braunschweig, 36 Mo. 397; State v. Cross, 27 Mo. 332; State v. Buckner, 25 Mo. 167. jail,70 unless such waiver is authorized by statute;71 and some courts have applied the same rule in the. case of any felony, whether capital or not, so that a trial or any material step therein, or the reception of the verdict in defendant's absence in such cases is error, although he has escaped or is otherwise voluntarily absent.72 Most of the courts, however, have held that defendant may waive his right to be present when the felony is not capital; that he does so if, having been released on bail, he absconds or is voluntarily absent after his arraignment and plea, and that in such a case the trial may proceed and the verdict may be received notwithstanding his absence;73 and some statutes expressly provide that the verdict may be received in defendant's absence 67. Ala. Harris v. State, 153 Ala. Miss.-Finch v. State, 53 Miss. 363. 597. Va.-Mills v. Com., 7 Leigh (34 68. State v. Kelly, 97 N. C. 404, 2 SE 185, 2 AmSR 299; State v. Paylor, 89 N. C. 539; State v. Jenkins, 84 N. C. 812, 37 AmR 643; State v. Bass, 82 N. C. 570; State v. Tilletson, 52 N. C. 114, 75 AmD 456. 69. Fla. Gladden v. State, 12 Fla. 562; Holton v. State, 2 Fla. 476. Miss. Lee v. State, 101 Miss. 387, 58 S 7; Sadler v. State, 98 Miss. 401, 53 S 783; Stanley v. State, 97 Miss. 860, 53 S 497; Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 S 554, 20 LRANS 509. N. Y. Maurer v. Peo., 43 N. Y. 1, 1 Cow. Pr. 335. N. C.-State v. Dry, 152 N. C. 813, 67 SE 1000; State v. Kelly, 97 N. C. N. Y.-Peo. v. Perkins, 1 Wend. 91; 404, 2 SE 185, 2 AmSR 299; State v. Peo. v. Winchell, 7 Cow. 525. N. C.-State v. Jenkins, 84 N. C. 812, 37 AmR 643; State v. Bray, 67 N. C. 283. Jenkins, 84 N. C. 812, 37 AmR 643. Pa.-Prine v. Com., 18 Pa. 103. But see Frank v. State, 142 Ga. 741, 762, 83 SE 645, 654 (where the Oh-Rose v. State, 20 Oh. 31; Sar-court said: "While a defendant ingent v. State, 11 Oh. 472. dicted for crime in this State has a Okl-Lawson v. Terr., 8 Okl. 1, 56| legal right to be personally present P 698. Or. State v. McDaniel, 70 Or. 232, 140 P 993; State v. Spores, 4 Or. 198. Pa. Com. v. Gabor, 209 Pa. 201, 5 A 278; Dougherty v. Com., 69 Pa. 256. S. D.-State v. Pearse; 19 S. D. 75, 102 NW 222. Tenn.-Percer v. State, 118 Tenn. 765, 103 SW 780; Stewart v. State, 7 Coldw. 338; Andrews v. State, 2 Sneed 550; Clark v. State, 4 Humphr. 254; State v. France, 1 Overt. 434. Tex.-Derden v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. 396, 120 SW 485, 133 AmSR 986; Richardson v. State, 7 Tex. A. 486. Va.-Gilligan v. Com., 99 Va. 816, 37 SE 962. Wis.-French v. State, 85 Wis. 400, 55 NW 566, 39 AmSR 855, 21 LRA 402. Wyo.-Trumbull v. Terr., 3 Wyo. [a] In New Jersey, by a long course of procedure, in all except capital cases, a verdict may be taken in the absence of accused. Jackson v. State, 49 N. J. L. 252, 9 A 740 [aff 50 N. J. L. 175, 17 A 1104]. [b] During recess.-It is error to allow the verdict to be received by the clerk during a recess of the court, in the absence of the prisoner, even though with the consent of his counsel. Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 41 S 630; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325. 64. Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325. 65. See infra § 2071. 66. Ford v. State, 34 Ark. 649; State v. Jenkins, 84 N. C. 812, 37 AmR 643; State v. Conkle, 16 W. Va. at every stage of his trial, as before [a] Conviction of lesser offense.— 70. Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 S 554, 20 LRANS 509. 71. See statutory provisions; and Watkins v. State, 110 Miss. 438, 70 S 457 (construing Code [1906] § 1495, providing that in criminal cases the presence of accused may be waived). 72. U. S.-Lewis v. U. S., 146 U. S. 370, 13 SCt 136, 36 L. ed. 1011; Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 4 SCt 202, 28 L. ed. 262; Weirman v. U. S., 36 Ct. Cl. 236. Ark. Sweeden v. State, 19 Ark. 205; Sneed v. State, 5 Ark. 431, 41 AmD 102. 41. Cal.-Peo. v. Beauchamp, 49 Cal. Conn.-State v. Hurlbut, 1 Root 90. Fla. Summeralls v. State, 37 Fla. 162, 20 S 242, 53 AmSR 247. La.-State v. Thomas, 128 La. 813, 55 S 415; State v. Ford, 30 La. Ann. 311. But see State v. Perkins, 40 La. Ann. 210, 3 S 647 (holding that a verdict may be legally rendered, received, and recorded where accused voluntarily leaves the court room and fails to appear after the sheriff's proclamation to come and hear the verdict about to be rendered). Philippine.-U. S. v. Karelsen, 3 Philippine 223. Tenn. Andrews v. State, 2 Sneed 550; Clark v. State, 4 Humphr. 254. Va.-Jackson v. Com., 19 Gratt (60 Va.) 656. W. Va.-State v. Sheppard, 49 W. Va. 582, 39 SE 676; State v. Greer, 22 W. Va. 800. 73. U. S.-Diaz v. U. S., 223 U. S. 442, 32 SCt 250, 56 L. ed. 500, Ann Cas1913C 1138; U. S. v. Loughery, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,631, 13 Blatchf. 267. Ark.-Davidson v. State, 108 Ark. 191, 158 SW 1103, AnnCas1915B 436; Darden v. State, 73 Ark. 315, 84 SW 507 [app dism 200 U. S. 615 mem, 26 SCt 758 mem, 50 L. ed. 621 mem]. D. C.-Falk v. U. S., 15 App. 446. Ga. Robson v. State, 83 Ga. 166, 9 SE 610; Barton v. State, 67 Ga. 653, 44 AmR 743; Smith v. State, 59 Ga. 513, 27 AmR 393; Wilkerson v. State, 14 Ga. A. 475, 81 SE 395. Ill. O'Donnell v. Peo., 110 Ill. A. 250 [aff 211 Ill. 158, 71 NE 842]; Sahlinger v. Peo., 102 Ill. 241. Ind. Heath v. State, 101 Ind. 512; State v. Wamire, 16 Ind. 357; McCorkle v. State, 14 Ind. 39. Kan.-State v. Bland, 91 Kan. 160, 136 P 947; State v. Thurston, 77 Kan. 522, 94 P 1011; State v. Way, 76 Kan. 928, 933, 93 P 159, 14 LRANS 603 [quot Cyc and dist State v. Moran, 46 Kan. 318, 26 P 754]. Ky. Howard v. Com., 118 Ky. 1, 80 SW 211, 25 KyL 2213, 81 SW 704, 26 KyL 363 [aff 200 U. S. 164, 26 SCt 189, 50 L. ed. 4211; Smith v. Com., 6 KyL 305; Stone v. Com., 2 KyL 391. Mass.-Com. V. McCarthy, 163 Mass. 458, 40 NE 766. Mich. Frey v. Calhoun Cir. Judge, 107 Mich. 130, 64 NW 1047. Minn.-State v. Gorman, 113 Minn. 401, 129 NW 589, 32 LRANS 306. Miss. Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 S 554, 20 LRANS 509; Gales v. State, 64 Miss. 105, 8 S 167; Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 716; Price v. State, 36 Miss. 531, 72 AmD 195. Mo.-State v. Gonce, 87 Mo. 627. N. J.-State v. Peacock, 50 N. J. L. 34, 11 A 270 [rev on other grounds 50 N. J. L. 653, 14 A 893]. N. C.-State v. Cherry, 154 N. C. 624, 70 SE 294; State v. Dry, 152 N. C. 813, 67 SE 1000; State v. Kelly, 97 N. C. 404, 2 SE 185, 2 AmSR 299. Oh.-Wilson v. State, 2 Oh. St. 319; Fight v. State, 7 Oh. 181, 28 AmD 626; Leiblang v. State, 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 539. Pa.-Lynch v. Com., 88 Pa. 189, 32 AmR 445; Com. v. Simon, 44 Pa. Super. 538. But see Prine v. Com., 18 Pa. 103, 104 (where the court said: "It is undoubtedly error to try a person for felony in his absence, even with his consent"). Tex-Fry v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 435, 182 SW 331; Whitehead v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 482, 147 SW 583; O'Toole v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 578, 51 SW 244. Wis. Stoddard v. State, 132 Wis. 520, 112 NW 453, 13 AnnCas 1211; Tandy v. State, 94 Wis. 498, 69 NW 160; Hill v. State, 17 Wis. 675, 86 AmD 736. 75 where he has escaped or is voluntarily absent;74 thiš rule has been held to apply also where defendant has been removed from the court room for a good cause." The mere fact that defendant is permitted or directed to leave the court room during trial is not error, if nothing is done and no steps are taken during his absence.76 A temporary absence from the court room, for a short time during the trial, even in a capital case, has been held not to be such an invasion of defendant's substantial rights as to be ground for a reversal or for a new trial.77 Who may waive. It is generally held that a waiver of defendant's right to be present during the trial, when permitted, must be made by him personally, and that the right cannot be waived by his counsel, unless defendant expressly authorizes him so to do.79 It has been held, however, that defendant may be bound by a waiver made by his counsel where he acquiesces therein.80 78 [§ 2073] (2) Waiver; Voluntary Absence. In misdemeanor cases it is within the discretion of the court either to allow or to refuse defendant the right to plead by attorney and be tried in his absence;85 and, although there are some decisions to the effect that defendant must be present when the punishment is imprisonment,86 it is generally held that, where defendant is properly represented by counsel,87 he may waive his right to be present during the trial, as by voluntarily absenting himself.ss In accordance with this rule, it is generally held that it is not necessary that defendant be present person[a] Waiver through well-founded | 765, 103 SW 780 (failure of counsel ren v. State, 19 Ark. 214, 68 AmD fear of mob violence will not render to object). 214. a conviction in defendant's absence Tex.-Hill v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 646, valid. Massey v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 114 SW 117. 371, 20 SW 758. 74. Davidson v. State, 108 Ark. 191, 158 SW 1103, Ann Cas1915B 436: Gore v. State, 52 Ark. 285, 12 SW 564, 5 LRA 832; State V. Beedle, (Mo.) 180 SW 888; State v. Hope, 100 Mo. 347, 13 SW 490, 8 LRA 608; State v. Smith, 90 Mo. 37, 1 SW 753, 59 AmR 4; Streich v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 155, 180 SW 266. And see statutory provisions. [§ 2072] b. In Misdemeanor Cases (1) In 75. U. S. v. Davies, 25 F. Cas. No. 14,923, 6 Blatchf. 464. [a] Grounds for removal from court room.-Removal of defendant from the court to an adjoining room where he has access to his counsel is not error, where he persists in interrupting the prosecuting attorney in a loud voice after being admonished by the court to refrain. U. S. v. Davis, 25 F. Cas. No. 14,923, Blatchf. 464. 6 76. Helms v. U. S., 2 Ind. T. 595, 52 SW 60. 77. Cal.-Peo. V. Bush, 68 Cal. 623, 10 P 169; Peo. v. Miller, 33 Cal. 99. Colo.-Van Houtan v. Peo., 22 Colo. 53, 43 P 137. Conn.-State v. Rubaka, 82 Conn. 59, 72 A 566. Ida.-State v. McGinnis, 12 Ida. 336, 85 P 1089. Ky.-Doyle v. Com., 37 SW 153, 18 KyL 518. La.-State v. Ricks, 32 La. Ann. 1098. Mo.-State v. Gonce, 87 Mo. 627; State v. Bell, 70 Mo. 633; State v. Grate, 68 Mo. 22. N. Y.-Peo. v. Bragle, 88 N. Y. 585, 63 HowPr 143, 42 AmR 269. Pa.-Com. v. Simon, 44 Pa. Super. 538. Tex.-O'Toole v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 578, 51 SW 244. 78. Ala. Cook v. State, 60 Ala. 39, 31 AmR 31; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325. Ark. Osborn v. State, 24 Ark. 629. Colo.-Smith v. Peo., 8 Colo. 457, 8 P 920; Green v. Peo., 3 Colo. 68. Ga-Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395, 46 SE 897; Lyons v. State, 7 Ga. A. 50, 66 SE 149. Kan.-State v. Myrick, 38 Kan. 238, 16 P 330. Miss.-Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 S 554, 20 LRANS 509. N. Y.-Peo. v. Wilkes, 5 HowPr 105. N. C.-State v. Dry, 152 N. C. 813, 67 SE 1000. Pa.-Prine v. Com., 18 Pa. 103. 79. Davidson v. State, 108 Ark. 191, 158 SW 1103, AnnCas1915B 436; Lyons v. State, 7 Ga. A. 50, 66 SE 149. 80. Frank v. State, 142 Ga. 741, 83 SE 645; Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395, 46 SE 897. Ala.-Slocovitch v. State, 46 81. Ark.-Owen v. State, 38 Ark. 512. Colo.-Lawn v. Peo., 11 Colo. 343, 18 P 281. Ga.-Wells v. Terrell, 121 Ga. 368, 49 SE 319; Lyons v. State, 7 Ga. A. 50, 66 SE 149. Kan.-State v. Muir, 32 Kan. 481, 4 P 812. Ky.-Payne v. Com., 30 SW 416, 16 Me.-State v. Garland, 67 Me. 423. Oh.-Truman v. Walton, 59 Oh. St. Okl.-Anderson v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 606, 116 P 1134; Stuart v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 27, 115 P 1026. Porto Rico.-Peo. v. Dessús, 4 Porto Rico 166. S. C.-State v. Spray, 74 S. C. 443, 54 SE 600. Tex.-Brooks v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 517, 179 SW 447; Love v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 259, 158 SW 532; Ex p. Taylor, 63 Tex. Cr. 571, 140 SW 774; Killman v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 570, 112 SW 92; Washington v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 323, 106 SW 361; Wyatt v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 193, 94 SW 219. Cal.-Peo. v. Ebner, 23 Cal. 158. Me.-State v. Garland, 67 Me. 423. Miss.-Williams v. State, 103 Miss. 147, 60 S 73. N. C.-State v. Dry, 152 N. C. 813, 67 SE 1000. Va.-Com. v. Crump, 1 Va. Cas. (3 Va.) 172. 86. U. S. v. Mayo, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,754, 1 Curt. 433; Wyatt v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 193, 94 SW 219; State v. Campbell, 42 W. Va. 246, 24 SE 875. [a] Judgment of imprisonment.— Although a defendant may appear by counsel in any misdemeanor case, and although it is punishable by imprisonment, in no case can there be judgment of imprisonment without having defendant present at its rendition. State v. Campbell, 42 W. Va. 246, 24 SE 875. But see Rex v. Hornbrook, 38 N. B. 358; Rex v. Kay, 38 N. B. 332 (both cases holding that. where accused has proper notice of the proceedings, and is aware that judgment may be pronounced against him, it is no objection that judgment was pronounced and sentence of imprisonment imposed in his absence). 87. U. S.-U. S. v. Leckie, 26 F. Ill-Carter v. Peo., 122 Ill. A. 77. Iowa.-State v. Young, 86 Iowa 406, 53 NW 272. Ky.-Johnson v. Com., 1 Duv. 244. Nebr.-Peterson v. State, 64 Nebr. 875, 90 NW 964. N. Y.-Blythe v. Tompkins, 2 Abb Pr 468. Or.-State v. Waymire, 52 Or. 281. N. S.-Reg. v. Grant, 30 N. S. 368. 97 P 46, 21 LRANS 56, 132 AmSR 699. [a] Where the minimum punish- See also cases infra note 88. ment includes imprisonment, defend- [a] Sufficiency of representation. ant must be present during the whole-The general authority of an attortrial. Stuart v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 27, ney as counsel in the case is in115 P 1026; Derden v. State, 56 Tex. sufficient. Peo. v. Wilkes, 5 HowPr Cr. 396, 120 SW 485, 133 AmSR 986; (N. Y.) 105. Washington v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 323, 106 SW 361. [b] Objection of counsel.-A court cannot try a defendant in his absence, where his counsel objects. Love v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 259, 158 SW 532. 82. See infra § 2073. 83. Smith v. Rome, 16 Ga. A. 161, 84 SE 615; State v. Nash, 51 S. C. 319, 28 SE 946. 84. Anderson v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 606, 116 P 1134; Stuart v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 27, 115 P 1026. 85. U. S.-U. S. v. Mayo, 26 F. Cas. Ark. -Owen v. State, 38 Ark. 512; [b] Withdrawal of counsel.-On a trial for a misdemeanor, where defendant is absent, under a statute allowing trial for a misdemeanor if defendant appears by counsel, the court may refuse to allow the counsel for defendant to withdraw from the case, and it is error to permit such withdrawal and to proceed with the case in the absence of both counsel and defendant. State v. Young, 86 Iowa 406, 53 NW 272. 88. U. S.-U. S. v. Shepherd, 27 F. Cas. No. 16,274, 1 Hughes 520. Alaska.-U. S. v. Kono, 4 Alaska 613. Ark. Cox v. Jonesboro, 112 Ark. 96, 164 SW 767; Owen v. State, 38 ally at the time that the verdict is rendered,89 particularly in those cases in which the misdemeanor is punishable by fine only.90 [§ 2074] c. Place of Defendant in Court. By Cal.-Peo. v. Ebner, 23 Cal. 158. Ill.-Bloomington v. Heiland, 67 Ill. 278; Carter v. Peo., 122 Ill. A. 77. Iowa.-State v. Hale, 91 Iowa 367, 59 NW 281; State v. Young, 86 Iowa 406, 53 NW 272. Kan.-State v. Sexton, 91 Kan. 171, 136 P 901; State v. Gomes, 9 Kan. A. 63, 57 P 262. Ky.-Veal v. Com., 162 Ky. 250, 172 SW 501; Walston v. Com., 106 SW 224, 32 KyL 535, 102 SW 275, 31 KyL 378; Payne v. Com., 30 SW 416, 16 KyL 839; Sharp v. Com., 30 SW 414, 16 KyL 840; Canada v. Com., 9 Dana 304; Steele v. Com., 3 Dana 84; Johnson v. Com., 1 Duv. 244; Com. v. Cheek, 1 Duv. 26. 47. Minn.-State v. Reckards, 21 Minn. Miss.-Williams v. State, 103 Miss. 147, 60 S 73; Harding v. State, 96 Miss. 204, 50 S 694. Nebr.-Peterson v. State, 64 Nebr. 875, 90 NW 964. N. Y.-Peo. v. Welsh, 88 App. Div. 65, 84 NYS 703. Oh.-Leiblang v. State, 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 539. Or-State v. Waymire, 52 Or. 281, 97 P 46, 21 LRANS 56, 132 AmSR 699. R. I.-State v. Guinness, 16 R. I. 401, 16 A 910. S. C.-State v. Rabens, 79 S. C. 542, 60 SE 442, 1110; State v. Lucker, 40 S. C. 549, 18 SE 797. Va.-Shiflett v. Com., 90 Va. 386, 18 SE 838. N. B.-Rex v. Kay, 38 N. B. 332. 89. U. S.-U. S v. Leckie, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,583, 1 Sprague 227; U. S. V. Mayo, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,754, 1 Curt. 433; U. S. v. Shepherd, 27 F. Cas. No. 16,274, 1 Hughes 520. Ala-Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 41 S 630. Ark.-Osborn v. State, 24 Ark. 629; Warren V. State, 19 Ark. 214, 68 AmD 214. Cal.-Peo. v. Ebner, 23 Cal. 159. Ill-Peo. v. Brown, 273 Ill. 169, 112 NE 462 [aff 196 Ill. A. 400]; Holliday v. Peo., 9 Ill. 111. Ind.-Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71, 25 NE 883, 9 LRA 664. Iowa.-State v. Shepard, 10 Iowa 126; Hughes v. State, 4 Iowa 554. Kan.-State v. Miller, 87 Kan. 454, 124 P 361. Miss.-Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 716. N. J.-State v. Vansciver, 7 N. J. L. J. 268. N. Y.-Peo. v. Petry, 2 Hilt. 523; Son v. Peo., 12 Wend. 344. Or-State v. Waymire, 52 Or. 281, 97 P 46, 21 LRANS 56, 132 AmSR 699. Tex-Loving v. State, (Cr.) 100 SW 154; Wyatt v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 193, 94 SW 219; Rippey v. State, Shackling defendant. A person undergoing trial for a criminal offense should be free from shackles,2 unless, in the sound discretion of the trial court,3 they are deemed necessary to restrain him from doing violence to others, or to prevent his escape," as while bringing him into or taking him from the court. If he is shackled without such necessity, it is reversible error, unless it is clear that no prejuGage v. State, 9165, 10 AmR 296. Vt.-Sawyer v. Joiner, 16 Vt. 497. [a] Rule under statute curing ir- 90. U. S.-U. S. v. Leckie, 26 F. Ark.-Henderson v. Murfreesboro, Porto Rico.-Peo. v. Del Moral, 16 Vt.-Ex p. Tracy, 25 Vt. 93. W. Va.-State v. Campbell, 42 W. [a] Absence from a trial by court- 91. Reg. v. Zulueta, 1 C. & K. 215, 47 ECL 213; Reg. v. Douglas, C. & M. 193, 41 ECL 109; Reg. v. Egan, 9 C. & P. 485 note a, 38 ECL 287; Reg. v. St. George, 9 C. & P. 483, 38 ECL 285; Kingston's Case, 20 How. St. Tr. 355; Byron's Case, 19 How. St. Tr. 1178; Ferrers' Case, 19 How. St. Tr. 886; Trial of Charles I, 4 How. St. Tr. 994. 92. See cases in preceding note. 93. Tooke's Case, 25 How. St. Tr. 1. 94. U. S. v. Gibert, 25 F. Cas. No. 15,204, 2 Sumn. 19; Grabowski V. State, 126 Wis. 447, 105 NW 805. 95. State v. Quinn, 18 Del. 339, 45 A 544; Matthews v. State, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 128, 42 AmR 667; State v. Underwood, 2 Overt. (Tenn.) 92. 96. Com, v. Boyd, 246 Pa. 529, 92 97. See Bail §§ 166, 184.. 99. State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, Ill-Hauser v. Peo., 210 Ill. 253, 71 NE 416. Miss.-Lee v. State, 51 Miss. 566. Mo.-State v. Craft, 164 Mo. 631, 65 SW 280; State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591 [aff 1 Mo. A. 438]. N. M.-Terr. v. Kelly, 2 N. M. 292. Tex.-Zunago v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 58, 138 SW 713, AnnCas1913D 665; Canon v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 398, 128 SW 141; Vela v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 322, 26 SW 396; Rainey v. State, 20 Tex. A. 455. V. Wash.-State Williams, 18 Wash. 47, 50 P 580, 63 AmSR 869, 39 LRA 821. W. Va.-State v. Allen, 45 W. Va. 65, 30 SE 209. Eng.-Waite's Case, 2 East. P. C. 570; Cranburne's Case, 13 How. St. Tr. 222. [a] Where defendant is a lawless and desperate character he may be shackled during arraignment, but at no other time, where a statute provides that accused shall not be restrained more than is necessary for his detention. Parker v. Terr., 5 Ariz. 283, 52 P 361. 3. McPherson v. State, 178 Ind. 583, 585, 99 NE 984 [cit Cyc]; Terr. v. Kelly, 2 N. M. 292; Powell v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 592, 99 SW 1005; State v. Allen, 45 W. Va. 65, 30 SE 209. 4. Terr. v. Kelly, 2 N. M. 292; State v. Allen, 45 W. Va. 65, 30 SE 209. 5. Ariz.-Parker v. Terr., 5 Ariz. 283, 52 P 361. Ky.-Donehy v. Com., 170 Ky. 474, 186 SW 161. Miss.-Lee v. State, 51 Miss. 566. N. M.-Terr. v. Kelly, 2 N. M. 292. Tenn.-Poe v. State, 10 Lea 673; Matthews v. State, 9 Lea 128, 42 AmR 667. Tex.-Powell v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 592, 99 SW 1005; Rainey v. State, 20 Tex. A. 455. Wash.-State v. Miller, 78 Wash. 268, 138 P 896. W. Va.-State v. Allen, 45 W. Va. 65, 30 SE 209. 94. Eng.-Layer's Case, 16 How. St. Tr. 6. Hauser v. Peo., 210 Ill. 253, 71 NE 416; Donehy v. Com., 170 Ky. 474, 186 SW 161; State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 237, 92 SW 869, 5 AnnCas 954; State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 228, 92 SW 494; State v. Craft, 164 Mo. 631, 65 SW 280; State v. Miller, 78 Wash. 268, 138 P 896. 7. Cal.-Peo. Cal. 165, 10 AmR 296. V. Harrington, 42 Mo.-State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591 [aff 1 Mo. A. 438, and rev on other grounds 107 U. S. 221, 2 SCt 443, 27 1. Nunez v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 481, 74. N. M. Terr. v. Kelly, 2 N. M. 292. |
