People v. Ramirez, 520 P.3d 617

Defendant Marcos Antonio Ramirez was charged with first-degree residential burglary; jury was selected and sworn on July 5, 2017 and ordered to return July 6.
On the morning of July 6 police and EMS responded to Ramirez’s home for a reported heroin/meth overdose; officers and EMS said Ramirez initially refused transport/treatment and told an officer he would come to court.
After the judge instructed Ramirez (via officers) to be in court within 15 minutes, Ramirez told counsel he preferred to go to the hospital; he did not appear that morning and the trial court held an on-the-record colloquy with counsel and an officer.
The trial court found Ramirez voluntarily absent under Penal Code §1043(b)(2), denied defense requests for a continuance or mistrial, proceeded with the one-day presentation of evidence in his absence, and the jury convicted Ramirez of attempted first-degree burglary; Ramirez returned and was present the next day.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court affirmed the voluntary-absence finding, holding that voluntary drug use is not per se a voluntary absence but that substantial evidence (viewed under an assumed clear-and-convincing standard) supported the trial court’s conclusion; dissents would have reversed for erroneous in absentia proceeding and prejudice from denial of a short continuance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly found Ramirez "voluntarily absent" under Pen. Code §1043(b)(2) without an evidentiary hearing	The totality of facts (voluntary drug ingestion, initial refusal of treatment, lucid demeanor, decision to go to hospital only after being told to appear) established voluntariness and justified proceeding	Absence resulted from an overdose/drug effect; voluntariness not established without a hearing; drug use is not per se a waiver of the right to be present	Affirmed. Court held drug use is not per se voluntary absence but substantial evidence (even under an assumed clear-and-convincing test) supported the trial court’s finding that Ramirez was aware of proceedings and had no sound reason to stay away
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a short continuance and trying Ramirez in absentia	The public interest, presence of jury/witnesses and prosecution scheduling supported proceeding	A one-day continuance was reasonable; denial deprived Ramirez of the right to be present and was prejudicial	Majority declined to address (forfeiture); dissent would reverse for abuse of discretion and prejudice

Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1912) (historic rule that if a noncapital defendant voluntarily absents after trial begins, the absence operates as a waiver allowing the trial to proceed)
Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1973) (three-part test: absence is voluntary only if defendant was aware of proceedings, knew right/obligation to be present, and had no sound reason for staying away; voluntariness must be "clearly established")
People v. Espinoza, 1 Cal.5th 61 (Cal. 2016) (adopts Taylor framework for §1043(b)(2) voluntary-absence analysis)
People v. Concepcion, 45 Cal.4th 77 (Cal. 2008) (reiterating Taylor factors and limits on proceeding in absentia)
People v. Gutierrez, 29 Cal.4th 1196 (Cal. 2003) (discusses trial court’s evaluation of voluntariness under totality of facts)
Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (Cal. 2020) (articulates appellate review when a trial finding is made by clear and convincing evidence: whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found it highly probable the fact was true)