328 Ga. App. 28
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Wedel was convicted of one count of child molestation in Cherokee County.
- He appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, claiming the withdrawal motion was decided in chambers without his presence.
- The withdrawal motion was argued after an in-chambers discussion triggered by discovery of contraband in Wedel's clothing.
- The trial judge later reconvened with Wedel present and considered the withdrawal request; Reynolds ultimately withdrew and Berry represented Wedel at trial.
- The court held Wedel waived any right to complain about his absence by not objecting and by later acquiescing in proceedings; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wedel’s absence at the in-chambers withdrawal hearing a critical stage error? | Wedel argues the absence violated his right to be present. | Record shows no final in-chambers ruling occurred without Wedel present and Wedel acquiesced. | Waived; no reversible error. |
| Did Wedel’s acquiescence in the in-chambers discussions cure any due-process defect? | Wedel did not object and was informed of proceedings. | Court ensured Wedel knew what happened and consented to proceed. | Yes, acquiescence cured potential error. |
| What standard governs review of a motion-for-new-trial ruling with mixed questions of law and fact? | Not at issue here beyond standard. | Apply de novo to legal questions and clear-error to factual findings. | Applied as stated in Wakefield and Reed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fair v. State, 288 Ga. 244 (2010) (right to be present at all critical stages)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (presence may be required when absence affects fairness)
- Huff v. State, 274 Ga. 110 (2001) (critical stage analysis in Georgia law)
- Jackson v. State, 278 Ga. 235 (2004) (waiver by acquiescence in proceedings in absence)
- Brown v. State, 310 Ga. App. 285 (2011) (waiver where defendant informed and acquiesced)