Goston v. State

• Decision Date: 03 March 1997
• Docket Number: No. CR,CR
• Citation: 327 Ark. 486,939 S.W.2d 818
• Parties: Lee GOSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 96-1200.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 818

939 S.W.2d 818

327 Ark. 486

Lee GOSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 96-1200.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 3, 1997.

Kelly M. Pace, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Winston Bryant, Attorney General, Clint Miller, Deputy Attorney General, Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Attorney General, Little Rock, for appellee.

IMBER, Justice.

At issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the appellant, Lee Goston, from his trial. Prior to his trial for second-degree battery, the trial court excluded Goston from trial because of recent incidents of disruptive behavior. Goston appealed and argued that the trial court wrongfully excluded him from trial.

The court of appeals reversed the conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial. Goston v. State, 55 Ark.App. 1, 930 S.W.2d 384 (1996). We granted a petition for review. Upon granting a petition for review from a decision of the court of appeals, we review the case as if the appeal was originally filed in this court. Armer v. State, 326 Ark. 7, 929 S.W.2d 705 (1996); Maloy v. Stuttgart Memorial Hosp., 316 Ark. 447, 872 S.W.2d 401 (1994). We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Goston from his trial, and reverse and remand for a new trial.

Goston's abstract reveals the following sequence of events leading up to his exclusion. On June 6, 1995, Goston was set to be tried on a second-degree battery charge. Prior to trial that day, Goston's counsel informed Goston that he was not going to be allowed to be present during trial. Goston then explained to the trial court that "I have got all of my membranes and I am all right, I am capable of sitting in there and conducting myself like a proper young man. I would like to assist my counsel in interrogating the witnesses."

Goston also indicated that he was dissatisfied with defense counsel, and that he knew more about the case than counsel did. Defense counsel replied that he had been unable to discuss the case with his client, because he had refused to talk to him when he visited him in the jail. Defense counsel told the trial court that he had a good idea of the witnesses' testimony, and that he had made a previous court appearance where Goston refused to walk on his own and had to be carried out of the courtroom. Defense counsel also described an incident in another case where Goston was disruptive in front of the jury panel. In his opinion, Goston would be better off excluded from trial; the prosecuting attorney agreed.

Goston then replied that he was not violent and posed no threat to the jury. He said that his prior incidents stemmed from drug-induced hallucinations. The trial court then told Goston that he "had never seen anybody in court like you were the last two times." Goston again maintained that he had been under the influence of drugs in the past, and emphasized that his prior disruptive behavior occurred in April or May. He then moved to dismiss the charges based on a speedy-trial violation, which the trial court denied. When Goston again said that he would like to assist his attorney at trial, the trial court replied, "That will be denied because of the way you acted here in this courtroom the last two times you have been here. You have shown the propensity to make it necessary for you to stay out of the courtroom during this trial."

Goston then noted that he had been speaking in a reasonable tone and a respectful manner, but the trial court recollected the last time Goston had been in court and had his shackles taken off, "[y]ou still acted up and after giving me your word, Mr. Goston. So I can't believe you." Goston conceded that he cursed at members of the jury panel, but said that he never hit anybody. He again said that he was not violent and wished to assist his counsel, and that he would "use my senses, my better sense of judgment ... I am asking you with the utmost respect for your authority."

Defense counsel then added that he felt uncomfortable sitting next to Goston unless he was shackled, given his prior statements that he desired to strike past counsel. However, he also opined that shackling Goston in front of the jury would not help his cause, and the trial court agreed.

Goston then moved to fire defense counsel because he "didn't trust him." He said that if he had to, he would rather ask questions himself while in shackles. The trial court denied Goston's motion to proceed pro se. Goston repeated that he posed no threat to the jury or any others in the courtroom, and then the trial court had Goston removed from the courtroom for the duration of his trial. The jury ultimately convicted Goston and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment.

On appeal, Goston argues that the trial court erred in excluding him from trial in violation of his constitutional right to be present and to confront witnesses. We review the trial court's determination for an abuse of discretion. See Stanley v. State, 324 Ark. 310, 920 S.W.2d 835 (1996).

Article 2, Section 10, of the Arkansas Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantee an accused the right to confront witnesses against him. This right encompasses the basic right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the trial. See Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892). However, the United States Supreme Court has held that the right may be forfeited when the accused behaves in a disruptive manner that makes it difficult to carry on the trial. Illinois v Allen, 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80 (1970).

In Allen the trial court repeatedly warned the defendant that he would be removed from the courtroom if he persisted in his disorderly conduct. Ultimately the defendant was removed, but the trial court reiterated that he could return whenever he agreed to conduct himself properly. The defendant eventually gave some assurances of proper behavior, and was allowed to return to trial.

On habeas review, the Allen Court concluded that the defendant forfeited his right to be present because of his behavior. The Court observed that judges confronted with disruptive behavior must have discretion to meet the circumstances of each case, and that "no one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations." Id. The Court additionally added that the right to be present may be reclaimed as soon as the defendant indicates willingness to conduct himself in a respectful manner consistent with the decorum of the courtroom. The Court suggested that there were at least three constitutionally permissible ways to handle the "obstreperous defendant":

(1) bind and gag him, thereby keeping him present;

(2) cite him for contempt;

(3) take him out of the courtroom until he promises to conduct himself properly.

Id. The Court concluded that removing the defendant was not the only constitutional method of dealing with him, but that the trial court did not commit legal error in the manner it dealt with the defendant.

A similar situation was presented to this court in Terry v. State, 303 Ark. 270, 796 S.W.2d 332 (1990), where the trial court removed the defendant from the courtroom after disruptive behavior. This court held that the defendant forfeited his right to be present through his own actions. While the trial court did not specifically warn the defendant that he would be removed from the courtroom before he was actually removed, the trial court "went to appellant's cell to try to convince him to return to the courtroom without being opprobrious, warned appellant that the trial court would proceed with or without him, and informed him that he could return at any time as long as he did so without contumacy." Id.

In the present case, the State argues that the trial court's detailed knowledge of Goston's past behavior was a sufficient factual basis for Goston's exclusion. We agree that the trial court's knowledge of a defendant's past behavior is a relevant consideration in the trial court's exercise of discretion under Illinois v. Allen.

For example, in United States v. Munn, 507 F.2d 563 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 968, 95 S.Ct. 1959, 44 L.Ed.2d 456 (1975), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's brief exclusion of the appellant from his trial for robbery. In Munn the appellant had physically assaulted his past lawyers, including the one who ultimately represented him at trial. A few weeks prior to trial during a pretrial hearing, the appellant threatened the trial court with violence, after which the court warned the appellant that he would be removed to a room where he could hear the proceedings if he acted improperly at trial.

At trial, the appellant used extremely abusive language and created a disturbance in the courtroom as jury selection was about to begin. The trial court then ordered the appellant into an office where he could hear the proceedings, and he was also advised that he could confer with counsel from time to time while he was absent. The appellant was absent from the courtroom for an hour and fifteen minutes, and he was allowed to return for the remainder of the trial after a promise to behave.

The Munn court rejected the appellant's contention that a contemporaneous warning of exclusion was required, noting that he had been warned during his prior tirade weeks earlier. Moreover, the appellant was able to hear the proceedings during his short exclusion from the courtroom.

The Tenth Circuit was also unpersuaded by the appellant's argument that he was not allowed to return soon enough after he agreed to change his behavior. The court noted that Illinois v. Allen contained "no absolute mandate dictating the return of every defendant who has been removed from the courtroom simply on his verbal promise to reform." Id. The court further recognized the value of prior conduct in assessing such a promise, and that ...