Appeals court considers whether trial judge erred in proceeding in absentia in Marshall drug case

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in the appeal of a drug‑distribution conviction in which the defense says the trial court improperly allowed the trial to proceed without the defendant present and imposed a sentence influenced by his lateness; the state argued the appellate record is inadequate and the defendant waived some claims.

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in an appeal by a defendant identified in the record as Mr. Marshall who challenges a trial court’s decision to grant the state’s motion to proceed in absentia and contends counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to testimony that the defendant intended to distribute drugs.

Why it matters: The right of a criminal defendant to be present at trial is constitutionally protected. The court’s decision in this appeal could clarify how much inquiry trial courts must make to determine whether a defendant’s absence is voluntary and what record is required to support an in‑absentia proceeding.

Defense argument

Hannah Levitt Howell, appearing for Marshall, told the panel the trial court erred when it granted the state’s motion to proceed in absentia because the state…

Appeals court considers whether trial judge erred in proceeding in absentia in Marshall drug case

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading