Gulledge v. State, 7 Div. 907
Decision Date | 08 March 1988 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 907,7 Div. 908 |
Citation | 526 So.2d 654 |
Parties | Jimmy GULLEDGE and Terry Gulledge v. STATE. , |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Stansel A. Brown III, Pell City, for appellant Jimmy Gulledge.
Tommie Wilson, Pell City, for appellant Terry Gulledge.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Mary Ellen Forehand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Jimmy and Terry Gulledge were convicted for theft in the second degree and sentenced as habitual offenders to imprisonment for terms of thirty and twenty years respectively. On their appeals from those convictions, both defendants raise the same three issues.
Although the entire trial was held in the absence of both defendants, neither defendant was denied his constitutional right to be present during every stage of his trial. Ex parte Hammond, 510 So.2d 153, 154 (Ala.1987); Berness v. State, 263 Ala. 641, 644, 83 So.2d 613 (1955). The trial court found that "the defendants did voluntarily and deliberately absence themselves from the trial of said cause."
The trial began and was completed on April 1st.
In his oral charge to the jury, the judge stated: "The Court has made an investigation outside the presence of the jury, and the Court at this time has not determined any cause or excuse whatsoever that the defendants have not seen fit to be here and participate in this trial."
At the conclusion of the trial court's oral charge to the jury, defense counsel, in making his objection to a portion of the instructions, stated that "we don't know if [the defendants] are voluntarily absenting themselves from the court." The trial court responded, "Well, I'll guarantee you if we find out that they are not voluntarily absent, this Court will take that up on motion being filed by each of the respective defendants." The record contains no indication that any explanation for the absence of either defendant was ever advanced.
A trial court does not commit error in trying a defendant in his absence where that defendant knows the date of the trial and simply fails to appear, and there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant was involuntarily absent. United States v. Schocket, 753 F.2d 336, 339-340 (4th Cir.1985). "A defendant may not unilaterally set the time or circumstances of his trial, see United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom. Ormento v. United States, 375 U.S. 940, 84 S.Ct. 345, 11 L.Ed.2d 271 (1963); rather, the defendant bears the burden of justifying his absence from a known proceeding against him." United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 249 (2d Cir.1986) (emphasis in original). An acknowledgement from defense counsel that there is no evidence of the whereabouts of his client may support the conclusion of the trial judge that the accused has willfully absented himself without a reason. Sanchez, 790 F.2d at 250. See generally 21A Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law §§ 698-699 (1981).
Immediately before the voir dire of the jury venire, the trial court made the following comments:
Counsel for both defendants objected to these remarks as "creating a highly prejudicial atmosphere toward our clients." Counsel objected because The trial court did not rule on these...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cox v. State
...from trial has been argued as ground for a mistrial. Cole v. State, 548 So.2d 629, 630 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). See also Gulledge v. State, 526 So.2d 654, 657 (Ala.Cr.App.1988).3 This Court is aware of the extensive civil litigation involving the participants in the murder of Michael Donald. See ......
-
Smith v. State
...(Ala. Cr.App.), aff'd, 610 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 3053, 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993); Gulledge v. State, 526 So.2d 654 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). Smith argues that the trial court erred in allowing Sgt. Pyle to testify about what Smith's mother told him. The followin......
-
Thomas v. State
...of the jury is error necessitating a reversal whether the remarks are made before or after the jury is impaneled.' Gulledge v. State, 526 So.2d 654, 657 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). "Here, while explaining to the jury venire the presumption of innocence with which appellant is clothed, the trial judg......
-
Ex parte DeBruce
...the trial and simply fails to appear and there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant is involuntarily absent. Gulledge v. State, 526 So.2d 654 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). Also, the decision to proceed in light of a voluntary waiver is discretionary, not mandatory, with the court. The court ......