City of Mandan v. Baer
Decision Date | 20 May 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 970127,970127 |
Citation | 578 N.W.2d 559 |
Parties | CITY OF MANDAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Richard B. BAER, Defendant and Appellant. Criminal |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Allen M. Koppy, State's Attorney, Mandan, for plaintiff and appellee.
Thomas M. Tuntland, Mandan, for defendant and appellant.
¶1 Richard B. Baer appealed from the Judgment of Conviction of the Morton County District Court issued following a jury verdict of guilty for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. We reverse and remand this case for a new trial because the district court erred in excusing a prospective juror during jury selection in the absence of the accused and his counsel.
¶2 Richard Baer was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. He challenged his administrative license suspension claiming the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him. Baer v. Director, 1997 ND 222, 571 N.W.2d 829. The district court reversed the suspension. Id. at p 1. The Director of the North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed. Id. We reversed the district court judgment because we concluded the officer had probable cause to arrest Baer. Id. In this appeal, Baer challenges his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol on the basis of the proceedings at trial.
¶3 During jury selection for Baer's DUI charge, the court asked several questions of the venire. In an apparent attempt to ascertain whether any of the prospective jurors were convicted felons, the district court asked, "[h]ave any of you lost the right to vote for any reason?" One of the prospective jurors raised his hand. The court continued:
¶4 After a brief recess, the court informed the attorneys he had dismissed one of the prospective jurors. Defense Counsel Tom Tuntland asked for a brief in camera hearing on the record. The record continued in chambers:
¶5 After voir dire was complete, each side exhausted their peremptory challenges. Once the jury was empaneled, sworn, and excused for a recess, the court asked:
¶6 Mr. Tuntland replied, "Yes, I am, Your Honor." 1
¶7 Trial was held, and the jury found Baer guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.
¶8 On appeal, Baer argues the district court erred when it excused a prospective juror outside the presence of the accused and his counsel. The presence requirement has its roots in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, reh'g denied, 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80 (1970). The Sixth Amendment provides that: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him...." U.S. Const. amend. VI. This constitutional guarantee was made obligatory on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Allen, 397 U.S. at 338, 90 S.Ct. at 1058 (citing Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). We have a similar guarantee in our State Constitution: "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend in person...." N.D. Const. art. I, § 12.
¶9 North Dakota has long recognized the constitutional right of a defendant to be personally present during the whole of a trial. State v. Schasker, 60 N.D. 462, 235 N.W. 345 (N.D.1931) ( ). The right is not absolute, 2 and may be affirmatively waived by the defendant. See, e.g., Rule 43(c)(2), N.D. R.Crim. P. (permitting absence with the written consent of the defendant for pleas of guilty for misdemeanor offenses). Cf. State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 481 (N.D.1995) ( ). The right, too, may be lost by a defendant's unruly and disruptive behavior. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057.
¶10 When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors--"harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, reh'g denied, 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1283, 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) ( ). See also Ash, 526 N.W.2d at 481; State v. Hatch, 346 N.W.2d 268, 278 (N.D.1984) ( ).
¶11 In addition to the constitutional guarantee, Rule 43(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the presence of the defendant "at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury...." Our North Dakota Rule is fashioned after the similarly-worded Federal Rule 43. Compare F.R.Crim. P. 43, with N.D. R.Crim. P. 43. The presence requirement embodied in Federal Rule 43 has been interpreted as being broader than the constitutional right. United States v. Alessandrello, 637 F.2d 131, 138 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 949, 101 S.Ct. 2031, 68 L.Ed.2d 334 (1981) ( ). Despite the purported breadth of Rule 43, it, too, is subject to express limitation. See, e.g., F.R.Crim. P. 43(b), (c); N.D. R.Crim. P. 43(b), (c) (the defendant's presence is not required). certain instances where
¶12 Although Rule 43 is contained in our procedural rules, our past decisions view its violation in light of the constitutional requirements. See, e.g., Ash, 526 N.W.2d at 481 ( ); State v. Smuda, 419 N.W.2d 166, 168 (N.D.1988) ( ); Hatch, 346 N.W.2d at 278 ( ).
¶13 We reverse in this case because the district court violated the defendant's constitutional right to be present when a prospective juror was removed from the venire and the State has not persuaded us that the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶14 From our review of the transcript, it is clear the district court incorrectly thought a North Dakota statute disqualified convicted felons from serving on a jury. Our State law formerly specified "conviction for a felony" as a general reason for challenging a prospective juror for cause. See N.D.C.C. § 29-17-34(1) (1991). In 1993, the North Dakota Legislature amended section 29-17-34, N.D.C.C., eliminating "conviction for a felony" as a specifically enumerated challenge for cause. 1993 N.D. Laws Ch. 333, § 1. See N.D.C.C. § 29-17-34 (Supp.1997).
¶15 The change was offered as a "clean up" bill to make section 29-17-34, N.D.C.C., consistent with the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, N.D.C.C. § 27-09.1-01 to 22. Hearing on S.B. 2355 Before Senate Judiciary Committee, 53rd N.D. Leg. Sess., (Feb. 2, 1993) ( ). The Uniform Jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Loughead, 20060160.
...him' in all criminal prosecutions." City of Fargo v. Komad, 2006 ND 177, ¶ 5, 720 N.W.2d 619 (quoting U.S. Const. Amend. VI; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 8, 578 N.W.2d 559). The denial of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him violates due p......
-
State v. Schierman
...10 jurors, not only for hardship, but because 4 jurors had parents who had been murdered.").7 See, e.g., City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, 578 N.W.2d 559, 563-64 (before the prospective juror reports for service, court may excuse prospective juror for illness or hardship outside the defe......
-
State v. Schierman
...10 jurors, not only for hardship, but because 4 jurors had parents who had been murdered.").7 See, e.g., City of Mandan v. Baer , 1998 ND 101, 578 N.W.2d 559, 563-64 (before the prospective juror reports for service, court may excuse prospective juror for illness or hardship outside the def......
-
State v. Curtis
...and a defendant may waive the right to be present by voluntarily being absent or by disruptive conduct. N.D.R.Crim.P. 43. See City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 9, 578 N.W.2d [¶ 28] The statute and rule give a criminal defendant a right to be present during the entire trial, and that ri......