Kimithi v. State, 52568
| Decision Date | 09 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 52568,52568 |
| Citation | 546 S.W.2d 323 |
| Parties | Dedan KIMITHI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appellant was convicted for aggravated robbery. His punishment was assessed by the court at seventy-five years' imprisonment.
The first four grounds of error urge that the trial court abused its discretion when it directed the bailiff and other deputies to handcuff and gag the appellant in the presence of the jury panel and the jury. We overrule these grounds of error and hold that the trial court's actions were entirely proper under the circumstances of this case.
The appellant informed the trial judge before the selection of the jury that he did not want to be present during any of the trial proceedings. He also requested the court to allow him to inform the jury that he did not desire to participate in the trial. The judge denied this request and recessed the proceeding until after lunch.
After the recess, the bailiff was forced to handcuff the appellant in order to bring him into the courtroom. The judge informed the appellant that he would be restrained if he did not conduct himself in a proper manner. The court then told the appellant that the handcuffs would be removed if he promised not to cause any physical disturbance. The appellant agreed to this and his restraints were removed. The jury panel was then brought into the courtroom.
At this point, the appellant began asserting that he had been choked and assaulted by the officers. The jury panel was removed from the courtroom. The court promptly obtained a medical examination for the appellant.
The physician who made the medical examination stated that the appellant was not injured. The appellant demanded the court to obtain another physician to examine him. The court denied this request and had the jury panel returned to the courtroom.
Upon the panel's return, the appellant stated that the repressive racism of the proceedings had made him ill and that he wanted another physician. The court asked the appellant to remain quiet. The appellant, however, continued his demands. The court instructed the bailiff to restrain the appellant's hands and silence him. The bailiff, with the help of other officers, placed some tissue paper in the appellant's mouth. The paper remained in his mouth only briefly. The jury panel was once again removed from the courtroom.
The court, at this stage in the proceedings, informed the appellant that he did not want to hurt him or restrain him in any manner. The judge implored the appellant to control himself and to conduct himself in an orderly manner. The proceedings were then recessed for the day.
During the evening, the court had another physician examine the appellant. This physician concluded that the appellant was physically capable of standing trial.
On the second day, the behavior of the appellant became even more unruly. In the presence of the jury panel, appellant called the judge a racist and demanded, on numerous occasions, that the judge disqualify himself. He repeatedly referred to the court as a 'kangaroo court.'
The record reflects that the judge once again asked the appellant to behave. The judge also warned him that he would be removed from the courtroom if his conduct continued. The court's requests went unheeded. The judge then held the appellant in contempt and removed him from the proceedings stating that the appellant could return if he would control himself.
Later, during the reading of the indictment to the jury, the appellant resumed his disruptive conduct. He demanded that he be tried by the United Nations. He called the court and the jury racists. He demanded the disqualification of the judge.
The judge asked the appellant to allow the trial to proceed. The appellant, however, continued his disruptions. He stated that his name was incorrect on the indictment. When inquiry was made into his proper name, he supplied two patently false answers: Garthamaumau and Rip Van Winkle. Finally, upon appellant's request, the name on the indictment was changed from Derrell Dwayne Smith 1 to Dedan Kimithi.
The judge had the appellant gagged and handcuffed when the disruptions persisted. Finally, the appellant was removed from the courtroom. During the remainder of the trial he was brought back to the courtroom only for identification purposes. He was handcuffed at these stages in the proceeding.
Initially, we observe that the judge instructed the appellant that he could return to the courtroom if he would conduct himself in an orderly fashion. Appellant's counsel were instructed to notify the court when the appellant was willing to behave.
We also note that the court only ordered the appellant to be handcuffed and gagged when it was obvious that the disruptions would not cease. Furthermore, the record reflects that the court attempted to prevent the jury panel and the jury from observing the unruly behavior.
We now give our reasons for overruling appellant's first four grounds of error. A prisoner should not be bound and gagged during a trial unless such action is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of an orderly and peaceable trial. In Gray v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 305, 268 S.W. 941, at 949, this Court stated:
'. . . if, in the sound discretion of the court, it appears necessary to retain his shackles to prevent the escape or self-destruction of the prisoner, or to prevent him from injuring bystanders or officers of the court, or if necessary to maintain a quiet and peaceable trial, the court may try the prisoner without having the shackles removed; his action being subject to the closest scrutiny and review by the appellate court.'
In Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 535 S.W.2d 357, we repeated this standard and held that the record must affirmatively demonstrate the reason why a handcuffed defendant was viewed by the jurors. The record in the case at bar establishes that the trial judge's actions were completely justified.
Indeed, the judge showed considerable compassion and restraint in his response to the appellant's behavior. The court promptly responded to the appellant's request for medical attention. The appellant was also warned on numerous occasions what the consequences of his acts would be. The appellant was informed on several occasions that he could return to the courtroom and participate in the proceedings unrestrained if he would conduct himself in a responsible manner.
No abuse of discretion is shown. The first four grounds of error are overruled.
Grounds of error five...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzales v. State
...constitution and his own sense of fairness. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Kimithi v. State, 546 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Therefore, he may incorporate modern technology into courtroom procedure in any manner consonant with such While the Uni......
-
Cary by and through Cary v. Oneok, Inc.
...398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80 (1970) (Criminal defendant may be excluded because of disruptive behavior); Kimithi v. State, 546 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Morley v. Superior Court of Arizona, 131 Ariz. 85, 638 P.2d 1331, 1334 (1981). Closer to our case here, many jurisdictio......
-
Gammage v. State
...State v. Richards, 467 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.1971).5 People v. Hillery, 65 Cal.2d 795, 56 Cal.Rptr. 280, 423 P.2d 208 (1967).6 Kimithi v. State, 546 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142, 426 P.2d 639 (1967); State v. Van Bogart, 85 Ariz. 63, 331 P.2d 597 (1958), cert. denied......
-
Morrison v. State
...speak with the defendant and report back to the court).Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not directly addressed the issue, in Kimithi, the Court spoke approvingly of a trial court's actions in using defense counsel as an intermediary to determine when a disruptive defendant w......