holding that reversal is required when a significant step in a case is taken in an accused’s absence if it appears that he has lost an advantage or has been prejudiced
How later courts described this case
- holding that reversal is required when a significant step in a case is taken in an accused’s absence if it appears that he has lost an advantage or has been prejudiced
- record must be sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review
- reconstructed record must be “adequate to inform [court] of what transpired at . . . trial”
- affirmed because the defendant failed to preserve the argument for appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I agree with the dissent that the appellant was entitled to be present if a hearing had been held on his motions. However, hearings are not required before a trial judge can rule on a motion, and neither the appellant, nor the record, shows a hearing was either requested or held on the motions he presented or filed with the court. For this reason, I join the majority.
Holt, C.J., joins in this concurrence.