Simpson v. State
Decision Date | 29 August 2003 |
Parties | James Olen SIMPSON, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roland Lewis Sledge, Valley, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Elizabeth Ray Butler, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, James Olen Simpson, Jr., was found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident involving injuries or death without providing the information or assistance required under § 32-10-1, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence that he was serving. The court also ordered him to repay $15,000 that had been paid to the victim by the crime victims compensation fund.
Simpson was indicted on January 30, 2002, and arraigned on March 11, 2002. Because of State budgetary problems, his case was not called for trial until June 19, 2002. Simpson failed to appear on that date, and the trial court found that he had voluntarily waived his right to be present. The State then offered evidence indicating the following: At approximately 7:00 p.m. on August 1, 2001, Jerry Cash and his wife Dana were riding their motorcycles near Lanett. Four or five times, a black automobile drove up behind them and then "back[ed] off." Shortly after Jerry Cash crossed some railroad tracks, the black automobile struck his motorcycle from behind. Dana Cash saw her husband fall onto the ground from the grille of the black automobile. The car accelerated and dragged Cash approximately 150 feet before it stopped; when it stopped its back tire was on Cash's chest. The driver then revved the engine and drove away without rendering any assistance or providing a name, address, vehicle registration, or driver's license. Neither Dana Cash nor Jerry Cash saw the driver of the automobile. Jerry Cash suffered numerous injuries, including deep abrasions, a broken nose, crushed eye sockets, and a dislocated shoulder. Two days after the accident, Jamie Reeves and his wife purchased a black 1989 Chevrolet Beretta automobile from Simpson. He told them that damage on the front of the vehicle had occurred when he drove into a ditch. On August 6, police lieutenant Richard Carter located the Beretta and contacted Simpson. After waiving his Miranda rights, Simpson told Carter that he had hit Jerry Cash accidentally because he did not see Cash's brake light. He said that he heard something being dragged under his car but he thought that it was the victim's motorcycle. Simpson said that he hid the Beretta in a field until he sold it to the Reeveses.
Simpson's first contention is that the trial court abused its discretion by trying him in absentia. He argues that he had the right to be present at the trial of his case and that he did not affirmatively waive this right. He further argues that the court erred in finding an implied waiver based upon his failure to appear because, he says, there was no evidence indicating that his absence was voluntary. Simpson argues that Rule 9.1(b)(1)(ii), Ala. R.Crim. P., allows an implied waiver only when a defendant is present at the beginning of trial and then fails to appear at a later date.
The record reflects that the judge called Simpson's case for trial on June 19, 2002. He asked if the defense was ready to proceed, and defense counsel responded, "No, sir, Your Honor." The following discussion then ensued:
The court proceeded with the voir dire of the jury. At the end of the questioning, the judge called the attorneys to the bench, and the following occurred:
The court asked defense counsel when he wanted the jury to return, and counsel said "[a]bout 30 minutes." When the jury returned, Simpson still was not present. The court then proceeded with the trial.
Whether a defendant who is absent at the commencement of trial can be tried in absentia when there is affirmative evidence that he knew of and voluntarily waived his right to be present by failing to appear is a matter of first impression before this court. Rule 9.1(a), Ala. R.Crim. P., provides that a defendant has "the right to be present at the arraignment and at every stage of the trial, including the selection of the jury, the giving of additional instructions pursuant to Rule 21, the return of the verdict, and sentencing." Section (b) of Rule 9.1 provides, in pertinent part:
The Committee Comments to Rule 9.1(b) state:
(Emphasis added.)
In Meadows v. State, 644 So.2d 1342 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), this court considered whether a defendant charged with a felony could be tried in absentia if he was not present at the beginning of trial. We held that, in the absence of affirmative evidence indicating that a defendant has voluntarily waived his right to be present, a defendant charged with a felony cannot be tried in absentia if he is not present at the beginning of his trial. In reaching this decision, we relied on the Committee Comments to Rule 9.1(b), quoted above, and on H. Maddox, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure (1990), in which former Justice Hugh Maddox concludes that a court cannot infer a waiver of the right to be present unless the defendant was present at the commencement of the trial. We also relied on Crosby v. United States, 506 U.S. 255, 113 S.Ct. 748, 122 L.Ed.2d 25 (1993), in which the United States Supreme Court held...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dearman v. State
... ... R. Crim. P. A criminal defendant may also ... waive his right to arraignment, to be present, and to a jury ... trial. See Hargett v. State , 813 So.2d 948, 949 ... (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (arraignment); Rule 14.1(a) and (b), Ala ... R. Crim. P., and Simpson v. State , 874 So.2d 575, ... 578 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (citing Taylor v. United ... States , 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 ... (1973))(right to be present); and Rule 9.1(b), Ala. R. Crim ... P., and Arrington v. State , 773 So.2d 500, 502 (Ala ... Crim ... ...
-
Lay v. State
...to be present, and to a jury trial. See Hargett v. State, 813 So.2d 948, 949 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (arraignment); Rule 14.1(a) and (b), Ala. R.Crim. P., 12 and Simpson v. State, 874 So.2d 575, 578 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (citing Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (......
-
Carroll v. State
...and was warned by counsel that the trial court might proceed without him if he failed to appear for trial); Simpson v. State, 874 So.2d 575, 579–80 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (court found waiver where the defendant was given notice of the time and place of the proceeding and his right to be presen......
-
Thompson v. State
...of the proceeding and was informed of the right to be present." The Committee Comments to Rule 9.1(b), as quoted in Simpson v. State, 874 So.2d 575, 578 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), "Section (b) allows a defendant to waive the right to be present. The defendant may make an express waiver in open co......