Haynes v. State
208 So. 3d 4
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Haynes was charged as a habitual offender with possession of a cell phone in a private correctional facility; trial date set for September 11, 2014.
- Haynes’s court‑appointed lawyer, Chris Collins, told the court Haynes contacted him the evening before and reported his car had broken down and he was trying to get a ride; Collins said he could not reach Haynes by phone on the morning of trial.
- The trial judge concluded Haynes willfully absented himself, denied Collins’s motions for a continuance, and proceeded to try Haynes in absentia.
- The jury convicted Haynes; sentencing was delayed so Haynes could appear—Haynes appeared at sentencing and reiterated his car trouble and indigency.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial‑in‑absentia decision for abuse of discretion and examined whether Haynes willfully, voluntarily, and deliberately avoided trial and whether a continuance should have been granted.
Issues
| Issue | Haynes' Argument | State's/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly tried Haynes in absentia without granting a continuance | Haynes (via counsel) argued he notified counsel of car trouble and inability to obtain transport due to indigency; he did not willfully avoid trial and was prejudiced by inability to testify | Trial court concluded Haynes willfully and deliberately absented himself despite notice of trial date and denied continuance | Reversed: court abused its discretion by trying Haynes in absentia without first granting a continuance because record did not show willful, voluntary, deliberate absence and Haynes suffered prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson v. State, 807 So.2d 1222 (Miss. 2002) (trial in absentia affirmed after multi‑day continuances failed to produce defendant)
- Wales v. State, 73 So.3d 1113 (Miss. 2011) (defendant who willfully avoids trial may be tried in absentia; continuance history relevant)
- Jay v. State, 25 So.3d 257 (Miss. 2009) (discusses waiver of right to be present when absence is willful and deliberate)
- Blanchard v. State, 55 So.3d 1074 (Miss. 2011) (affirmance under plain‑error review where defendant was absent, aware of trial date, and offered no proof absence was not willful)