Commonwealth v. Campbell, 983 N.E.2d 1227

Defendant Campbell was convicted by jury on three counts: accessory after the fact (armed robbery), accessory after the fact (larceny over $250), and carrying a firearm without a license; he also was later convicted as an armed career criminal in a separate proceeding.
A motion for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and deprivation of the right to be present at a suppression hearing was denied without a hearing.
Codefendant’s counsel sought and obtained a suppression hearing; Campbell was not transported to court because his counsel had not filed a suppression motion.
The trial judge allowed the codefendant’s motion to proceed and stated Campbell’s presence could be deemed waived if he joined the motion, despite Campbell’s absence.
Defense counsel objected, but the judge proceeded with the hearing, with Campbell's presence later contemplated only if counsel joined the codefendant’s motion and if Campbell wished to testify, which he did not.
The suppression hearing was held; it resulted in a denial of the motion. Months later, new counsel filed reconsideration, which was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Campbell's absence at the suppression hearing a waiver of the right to be present?	Commonwealth argues waiver due to defense counsel’s procedural misstep and practical proceedings.	Campbell did not voluntarily waive; his counsel objected to proceeding without him and sought to join the motion.	Waiver occurred in error; absence was not a valid waiver.
Was the deprivation of the right to be present harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	Commonwealth contends error was harmless since suppression failed and issue did not affect outcome.	Campbell argues the absence impaired his ability to contest evidence used against him and could affect trial fairness.	Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions and judgments reversed.

Robinson v. Commonwealth, 445 Mass. 280 (Mass. 2005) (right to be present at suppression hearing; critical-stage protection)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 505 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (waiver and presence rights at hearings)
Commonwealth v. L’Abbe, 421 Mass. 262 (Mass. 1995) (competency hearings and presence rights)
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (defendant right to be present at critical stages)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (structural considerations of constitutional error only in some contexts)
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (presence at trial where evidence matters to guilt is crucial)
United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1981) (balancing defendant rights with societal interests in justice)
Olney v. United States, 433 F.2d 161 (9th Cir. 1970) (presence at suppression hearing and admissibility of evidence)
People v. Anderson, 16 N.Y.2d 282 (N.Y. 1965) (relationship between suppression hearing and case outcome)