Champ v. State, 310 Ga. 832

Dekito Champ was indicted for the 2016 murder of his former girlfriend Jana Watson; the jury convicted him of malice murder and a firearm offense and he was sentenced to life plus five years.
At voir dire, multiple bench conferences were held that Champ could see but not hear; some juror excusals were announced in open court and others were made at the bench without public explanation.
Champ did not object at trial or raise a right-to-be-present claim in his motions for new trial; the claim was asserted for the first time on appeal.
The State conceded that several bench conferences concerning juror removal implicated Champ’s Georgia constitutional right to be present.
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence but vacated in part and remanded for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Champ acquiesced (i.e., waived) his right to be present.

Issue	Champ's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Champ’s Georgia-constitutional right to be present was violated by bench conferences during jury selection	Bench conferences where jurors were discussed/removed are a "critical stage" and Champ was not "present" because he could not hear them	Some bench conferences were logistical or harmless; waiver/acquiescence may apply	Bench conferences about juror removal implicate the right to be present; remand required to determine acquiescence
Whether Champ waived or acquiesced to his absence from those bench conferences	Champ did not explicitly waive and did not have opportunity to develop record below	State argued acquiescence could be inferred from record and Champ’s silence	Because acquiescence is fact-specific and the claim was raised first on appeal, the trial court must hold a hearing to develop evidence and make findings on acquiescence
Appropriate remedy if right-to-be-present violation found and not waived	Automatic reversal and new trial (per Georgia precedent)	State sought opportunity to show waiver/acquiescence; urged remand to develop record	Court remanded for hearing; emphasized Georgia’s rule presumes prejudice absent waiver but remand needed before appellate disposition
Whether sufficiency of evidence supports convictions	N/A — Champ did not challenge sufficiency on appeal	State: evidence sufficient	Court affirmed sufficiency under Jackson v. Virginia

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Zamora v. State, 291 Ga. 512 (Georgia right to be present includes bench conferences where jurors are selected or removed)
Murphy v. State, 299 Ga. 238 (defendant present in courtroom but excluded from bench conference about juror dismissal is not "present" under GA Constitution)
Brewner v. State, 302 Ga. 6 (a defendant may relinquish the right to be present by personal waiver, counsel waiver with express direction, or acquiescence)
Howard v. State, 307 Ga. 12 (acquiescence can be inferred from a defendant’s silence after becoming aware of proceedings)
Pennie v. State, 271 Ga. 419 (lack of defendant’s knowledge of out-of-court proceedings can defeat waiver; right is personal to defendant)
Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (U.S. Supreme Court: right to be present under federal Constitution is subject to harmless-error review)
Ward v. State, 288 Ga. 641 (example where acquiescence was not found where excusal occurred ex parte during a recess and defendants were not informed)