State v. Rucker, 310 P.3d 422

Defendant Matthew Rucker, in custody, sent a note on the morning of trial saying he was on a hunger strike, too weak to attend, and requesting new counsel.
The judge doubted the claim; jail staff testified Rucker ate part of breakfast and appeared healthy.
The judge directed defense counsel to deliver a note to Rucker stating the court required his presence, that the judge believed Rucker was feigning illness to delay trial, and that the court would not physically force him to attend; jail staff reported Rucker briefly read then discarded the note.
The court proceeded with the jury trial in Rucker’s absence, instructed the jury not to hold the absence against him, and then convicted him of theft and eluding.
On appeal Rucker argued his statutory and constitutional right to be present was violated; he also raised the trial-court’s failure to appoint new counsel based on his morning note.
The court held the record did not show a knowing, voluntary waiver by Rucker, the error was not harmless (the exclusion of Rucker’s post-chase statement could have affected the verdict), and therefore reversed and remanded for retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rucker)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Rucker voluntarily waived presence under K.S.A. 22-3405	Waiver absent because trial had not been commenced in his presence; Saltón should be overruled	Rucker voluntarily absented himself and statute permits continuing trial	Court declined to rely on statute alone; addressed constitutional waiver and found waiver not shown
Whether Rucker knowingly and voluntarily waived constitutional right to be present	Waiver not knowing/voluntary—no personal advisement by judge; only a note delivered by counsel	Judge reasonably concluded Rucker was trying to delay and had previously appeared competent	Held waiver invalid: judge failed to personally advise and record did not show understanding and voluntary waiver
Whether the trial error was harmless	Exclusion of Rucker’s out-of-court statement (he claimed to be passenger) could have affected verdict	State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the error was harmless	Held error not harmless; reversal required because possibility the absence contributed to convictions
Whether the court erred by not appointing new counsel based on morning note	Rucker requested new counsel in his note	Trial court made a limited inquiry and could address this on remand	Issue left to district court on remand; no decision now because retrial ordered

Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (constitutional right to be present is fundamental)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (waiver of constitutional rights must appear knowing and voluntary)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (waiver requirement: knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
State v. Salton, 238 Kan. 835 (Kansas case applying K.S.A. 22-3405 to permit trial to continue when defendant absent)
State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (harmless-error standard for reversal in Kansas)
Jones v. Murphy, 694 F.3d 225 (circumstances may justify not returning disruptive detainee to courtroom)