Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court considers whether trial court erred in proceeding in absentia for Marshall
Summary
Oral argument in State v. Marshall centered on whether the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry before finding the defendant absent and whether Marshall suffered prejudice from the in-absentia proceedings; the panel took the matter under advisement.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Marshall over two principal issues: whether the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to proceed in absentia and whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to law-enforcement testimony about intent to distribute.
Hannah Levitt Howell, counsel for Mr. Marshall, told the panel that the prosecutor and trial court did not show that Marshall voluntarily absented himself and that the record suggests he may have been involuntarily absent because of car trouble. "The state did nothing," Howell said, arguing the State had the burden at trial to present evidence of voluntariness and that it failed to do so during the recorded on-the-record proceedings. Howell also…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
