stating that a contrary rule would allow an accused at large upon bail to immobilize the commencement of trial and frustrate an overtaxed judicial system until the trial date meets with her pleasure and convenience
How later courts described this case
- stating that a contrary rule would allow an accused at large upon bail to immobilize the commencement of trial and frustrate an overtaxed judicial system until the trial date meets with her pleasure and convenience
- holding that where a defendant failed to appear at trial, he waived the right to be present because there was no question that defendant knew the date of the proceeding
- holding that it was proper for trial to commence in absentia when the defendant failed to appear on the day his trial was scheduled to begin
- holding that “when a defendant is absent without cause at the time his trial is scheduled to begin, he may be tried in absentia”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join with the majority, but write separately to emphasize that no harm is done to a defendant whose case is heard in his absence because good cause has not been shown to the trial judge for the absence when, in fact, good cause exists for the absence. At sentencing, when the defendant appears, if he can establish that he had good cause for his absence at trial, he would be entitled to a new trial.