AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. At trial, the deposition of the decedent’s sister was read to the jury without objection. The deposition was taken due to the witness's inability to travel because of a medical condition. Additionally, there was a pre-trial conference about jury selection without the Defendant's presence, where some potential jurors were excluded based on their questionnaires. The Defendant did not object to these proceedings at trial but later argued on appeal that his absence during these events constituted error.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by not ensuring the Defendant's presence at the deposition of a witness and during a portion of the jury selection process.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's absence during the deposition and a pre-jury selection conference did not constitute error, emphasizing that the Defendant was represented during the deposition and that the pre-jury selection conference was part of a "culling" process not requiring the Defendant's presence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not ensuring the Defendant's presence at the deposition of a witness and during a portion of the jury selection process.

Disposition

• The court found no fundamental error in the Defendant's absence from the deposition of the witness and the pre-jury selection conference, affirming the convictions.

Reasons

• The court, comprising Judges Roderick T. Kennedy, Michael D. Bustamante, and M. Monica Zamora, held that the Defendant's absence during the deposition and a portion of the jury selection did not constitute fundamental error. The court reasoned that the Defendant did not object to the deposition's admissibility at trial or to his absence during the jury selection conference. The deposition was necessary due to the witness's medical condition and was not objected to by the Defendant, who was represented by counsel during the deposition. The court also found that the pre-jury selection conference was part of a "culling" process, which is administrative and does not require the Defendant's presence. The court concluded that the Defendant's rights were not fundamentally violated by his absence from these proceedings, as he was represented during the deposition, and the jury selection process did not prejudice his right to a fair trial (paras 1-27).