Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by finding Benjamin Garza voluntarily absent and proceeding with his jury trial after he was arrested and incarcerated on an unrelated warrant. The court ruled that voluntary-absence determinations must account for the presumption against waiver and the circumstances of the defendant's absence, reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard of review applies to a trial court's determination that a defendant voluntarily absented himself from trial?
- What procedures must a trial court follow before finding that a defendant who was present at the beginning of trial voluntarily waived the constitutional right to be present?
- How does a defendant's incarceration on an unrelated charge affect the voluntary-absence and waiver inquiry?
Holdings
- A trial court's determination that a defendant voluntarily absented himself from trial, and thereby waived the right to be present, is reviewed for abuse of discretion rather than de novo.
- When a defendant who was present at the start of trial is absent, the trial court must inquire into the circumstances, may make a preliminary finding of voluntary absence only when justified, and must afford the defendant an adequate opportunity to explain the absence before sentence is imposed.
- When an absent defendant has been incarcerated on an unrelated charge, the court must determine whether the defendant could contact the court or tried but failed to do so. If the defendant's efforts were reasonable, the court must retract the preliminary finding of voluntary waiver and grant a mistrial; otherwise, the court may make a renewed finding of voluntary absence.
Key quotations
“Therefore, abuse of discretion is the correct standard of review for a trial court's determination of whether the defendant's absence is voluntary and, thus, a waiver of the right to be present at one's trial.” (at 350)
“The presumption against waiver must be the overarching principle throughout the inquiry.” (at 351)
“If the defendant's efforts were reasonable, the court must retract its preliminary finding of voluntary waiver and grant a mistrial.” (at 352)
“Unless the trial court determines that the circumstances justify a renewed finding of voluntary absence, the court must declare a mistrial.” (at 352)
Factual background
Garza was charged with attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle after a high-speed chase and began trial in his presence. On the morning of June 19, 2000, Garza told counsel that he was running late and expected to arrive by 9:20 a.m., but he was arrested while en route because of an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction. The trial court proceeded without him after waiting only five minutes, and Garza was not present for the remainder of the testimony, closing arguments, jury instructions, or verdict. After learning of the arrest, Garza moved for a new trial and explained that he had asked the arresting officer to notify King County, although the officer did not testify and no notification occurred.
Procedural history
Garza was charged by information in February 2000 and proceeded to jury trial in King County Superior Court in June 2000. After Garza failed to appear on the morning of June 19, the trial court preliminarily found his absence voluntary and continued the trial without him; the jury returned a guilty verdict the following day. The trial court denied Garza's motion for a new trial, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals' decision was reversed, Garza's conviction was vacated, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.