People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 23 September 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 33530,33530 |
| Citation | 6 Ill.2d 414,129 N.E.2d 164 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Olen SMITH, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Aaron H. Payne, and Lycurgus J. Conner, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John Gutknecht, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, George W. Schwaner, Jr., Springfield, John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, and William L. Carlin, Chicago, of counsel), for the people.
By an indictment in the criminal court of Cook County plaintiff in error Olen Smith was charged with unlawfully selling a narcotic drug. He pleaded not guilty and waived trial by jury. On a trial before the court he was found guilty and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of one to five years. Bringing only the common-law record he comes to this court on writ of error, contending the court erred in hearing the testimony of certain witnesses, entering judgment and pronouncing sentence, all at a time when he was not personally present in court.
The record discloses that plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was present at all times during the trial until the State rested, after which the cause was continued. On the day to which it was continued he was present in person and by counsel, and on motion of his counsel the case was again continued to December 12, 1952. On that date the defendant failed to appear in person. His counsel, however, was present. Additional evidence was then heard, the defendant was found guilty, motions by his attorney for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and defendant was sentenced in absentia. On the same day his bond was forfeited and capias was ordered to issue. It further appears that the bond forfeiture was subsequently vacated and set aside.
The law is clear that an accused has the right to appear and defend in person as well as by counsel, and that he is entitled to be present and to participate at every stage of the trial. People v. Brindley, 369 Ill. 486, 17 N.E.2d 218; People v. McGrane, 336 Ill. 404, 168 N.E. 321. It has long been established that a prisoner accused of a felony must be arraigned in person and must plead in person, and his personal appearance is required throughout the trial and at the time sentence is pronounced. The fact that he was present during the trial and at the imposition of sentence must be affirmatively shown by the record, and a failure in this respect will not be aided by those presumptions which the law ordinarily raises in support of the judgments of courts of general jurisdiction. People v. Yurkiates, 404 Ill. 157, 88 N.E.2d 458; Harris v. People, 130 Ill. 457, 22 N.E. 826, 827. As we observed in the Harris case, 'This apparent exception to the general rule may perhaps be attributed to an abundant tenderness for the right secured by the constitution to the accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him, and to be heard by himself and counsel; but, however this may be, it seems to be well supported by the authorities.' Where the accused is not present in person, the error is not cured by the presence of his counsel, as his attorney has no power to waive his right to be present. People v. McGrane, 336 Ill. 404, 168 N.E. 321.
It is also well established that this constitutional right to be present at every step taken in his case may, like many other rights, be waived by the prisoner. Thus where a defendant voluntarily absents himself from the courtroom at the moment a verdict is rendered, or runs away from the court after he learns of the verdict, and refuses to return for sentence or further proceedings, he is deemed to have waived his right to be present and cannot claim any advantage on account of his absence. People v. Weinstein, 298 Ill. 264, 131 N.E. 631; Sahlinger v. People, 102 Ill. 241. In such case the court is under no obligation to stop the trial until the defendant chooses to return, and it does not transcend its legitimate powers by proceeding with the case to final judgment.
In the case at bar, however, the record fails to disclose the reason for defendant's absence, and hence there is nothing upon which to base a waiver of his constitutional right to be present in person. The State argues that in the absence of any explanation, defendant's failure to appear is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lofton
... ... People v. Bean, 137 Ill.2d 65, 80, 82, 147 Ill.Dec. 891, 560 N.E.2d 258 (1990) ... When the accused is not present in person, the error is not cured by the presence of his counsel, as his attorney has no power to waive his right to be present. People v. Smith, 6 Ill.2d 414, 416, 129 N.E.2d 164 (1955) ... The nearly unanimous rule in this country is that the defendant's constitutional right to be present at the trial does not embrace a right also to be present at the argument of motions prior to trial or subsequent to verdict. Woods, 27 Ill.2d at 395, ... ...
-
People v. Harvey
...(1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 981, 343 N.E.2d 55.) Unless the defendant waives this right, his presence is deemed essential. (People v. Smith (1955), 6 Ill.2d 414, 129 N.E.2d 164; People v. Rife (1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 602, 310 N.E.2d 179; 14 A Ill. L. & Prac. Criminal Law 495 at 495 (1968).) The fac......
-
People v. Bean
... ... Undeniably, a criminal defendant has a general right to be present at every stage of his trial, including jury selection. (Illinois v. Allen (1970), 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, 356; People v. Smith (1955), 6 Ill.2d 414, 416, 129 N.E.2d 164.) This court and the United States Supreme Court, however, have limited the situations in which the denial of this broad right of presence constitutes a violation of the Illinois and United States Constitutions. We examine this issue first by applying ... ...
-
People v. Aguilar
...of trial. Case law is sparse concerning a defendant's right to be present when the trial court finds him guilty. People v. Smith , 6 Ill. 2d 414, 129 N.E.2d 164 (1955) (finding that the defendant's absence from the trial court's pronouncement of guilt violated his right to be present but no......