In the Interest of Dwayne M.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Interest of Dwayne M.

339 S.E.2d 130, 287 S.C. 413, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 253

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 16, 1986

Docket22450

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 339 S.E.2d 130 (In the Interest of Dwayne M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of Dwayne M., 339 S.E.2d 130, 287 S.C. 413, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 253 (S.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Ness, Chief Justice:

Appellant was adjudicated a delinquent-for the offenses of committing a lewd act on a minor and indecent exposure. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The victim, Melody, was five years old when the offense occurred and six years old at the time of trial. When the solicitor called Melody to the stand, the judge, sua sponte, ordered everyone to leave the courtroom except the attorneys and the court reporter. The judge denied defense counsel’s request that appellant be allowed to remain. The judge’s action was apparently based on Melody’s young age.

Appellant alleges constitutional error in requiring him to leave the courtroom during Melody’s testimony. We agree.

A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at every stage of the criminal proceeding against him. Ellis v. State, 267 S. C. 257, 227 S. E. (2d) 304 (1976); State v. Bramlett, 114 S. C. 389, 103 S. E. 755 (1920). He has a right to hear the evidence presented against him. State v. James, 116 S. C. 243, 107 S. E. 907 (1921). The right to be present and to confront witnesses applies in juvenile court proceedings in the same manner as in criminal court proceedings. In Re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. (2d) 527 (1967). The right to be present during trial may be waived. State v. Green, 269 S. C. 657, 239 S. E. (2d) 485 (1977). A defendant may be excluded from the courtroom when his conduct is disruptive or is interfering with the progress of the trial. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L. Ed. (2d) *415 353 (1970); see also 23 S. C. L. R. 127. Here appellant did not waive his right to be present, and there is no indication in the record he was disruptive in any manner.

While the right to be present is a substantial one, there is no presumption of prejudice. State v. Smart, 278 S. C. 515, 299 S. E. (2d) 686 (1982). However, under the facts of this case, the mandatory exclusion of appellant from the courtroom during this critical testimony cannot be regarded as harmless.

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ness, Chief Justice:

Appellant was adjudicated a delinquent-for the offenses of committing a lewd act on a minor and indecent exposure. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The victim, Melody, was five years old when the offense occurred and six years old at the time of trial. When the solicitor called Melody to the stand, the judge, sua sponte, ordered everyone to leave the courtroom except the attorneys and the court reporter. The judge denied defense counsel’s request that appellant be allowed to remain. The judge’s action was apparently based on Melody’s young age.

Appellant alleges constitutional error in requiring him to leave the courtroom during Melody’s testimony. We agree.

A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at every stage of the criminal proceeding against him. Ellis v. State, 267 S. C. 257, 227 S. E. (2d) 304 (1976); State v. Bramlett, 114 S. C. 389, 103 S. E. 755 (1920). He has a right to hear the evidence presented against him. State v. James, 116 S. C. 243, 107 S. E. 907 (1921). The right to be present and to confront witnesses applies in juvenile court proceedings in the same manner as in criminal court proceedings. In Re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. (2d) 527 (1967). The right to be present during trial may be waived. State v. Green, 269 S. C. 657, 239 S. E. (2d) 485 (1977). A defendant may be excluded from the courtroom when his conduct is disruptive or is interfering with the progress of the trial. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L. Ed. (2d) *415 353 (1970); see also 23 S. C. L. R. 127. Here appellant did not waive his right to be present, and there is no indication in the record he was disruptive in any manner.

While the right to be present is a substantial one, there is no presumption of prejudice. State v. Smart, 278 S. C. 515, 299 S. E. (2d) 686 (1982). However, under the facts of this case, the mandatory exclusion of appellant from the courtroom during this critical testimony cannot be regarded as harmless.

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.E.2d 130, 287 S.C. 413, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-dwayne-m-sc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack