2022 IL App (3d) 190635
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Eric Bartels was charged after strangling and stabbing his girlfriend at a Shell station; indicted for attempted first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated domestic battery (other counts dismissed).
- The State admitted gas-station video recordings and jail-to-victim audio calls; those files were provided on a thumb drive.
- During the bench trial the trial court viewed the videos and listened to the audio in chambers without Bartels present after defense counsel suggested the procedure and later provided a laptop to enable viewing.
- The court convicted Bartels of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated domestic battery and relied in part on the recordings and jail calls; defendant moved for a new trial arguing due process violation from being absent during chamber review.
- The trial court and the appellate court found (1) defense counsel effectively waived Bartels’ right to be present, (2) the in-chambers viewing was not a critical stage because the evidence had already been presented and the defendant knew its substance, and (3) Bartels was not prejudiced; the appellate court affirmed.
- Justice McDade specially concurred, expressing concern that allowing in-chambers viewing without the defendant may erode the right to be present at critical stages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Bartels) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated due process by viewing admitted recordings in chambers without defendant present | In-chambers viewing was not a critical stage; defendant knew the evidence and was not prejudiced | Defendant did not knowingly waive his right to be present; absence prevented him from gauging the court and deciding whether to testify | No due process violation; viewing was not a critical stage and defendant was not prejudiced |
| Whether defense counsel could waive the defendant’s right to be present | Counsel can waive presence where the defendant’s presence would not affect ability to defend; counsel actually proposed the procedure | Counsel cannot waive the defendant’s personal right to be present; waiver must be knowing and voluntary | Counsel effectively waived the right here because the evidence was already known and counsel suggested the procedure |
| Whether the court must admonish a defendant about the right to be present before any waiver | No admonition is required; required admonitions are those protecting substantial rights like right to counsel and to testify | Lack of admonition means any waiver was not knowing and voluntary | No new admonition rule; no requirement to admonish about the right to be present in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lindsey, 201 Ill. 2d 45 (Ill. 2002) (right to be present protects substantial rights and secures other rights)
- People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65 (Ill. 1990) (limited circumstances when absence amounts to constitutional deprivation)
- People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (Ill. 1998) (federal due process violated when absence produces an unfair, unjust trial)
- People v. Lofton, 194 Ill. 2d 40 (Ill. 2000) (defendant’s absence during testimonial hearing impaired ability to defend)
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1985) (defendant has right to be present when presence has a relation to ability to defend)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (right to be present is not absolute; absence is permissible when presence would be useless)
- People v. O’Quinn, 339 Ill. App. 3d 347 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (de novo review on alleged due process violations regarding presence)