v3243-233

right by voluntarily absenting themselves from

the trial since they were not in custody. (Citing

cases) . But a trial is supposed to take place in

a courtroom, and here even if appellants had been

in the courtroom, this proceeding would not have

taken place in their presence, for it took place

in the judge's chambers. If appellants had ab-

sented themselves from a courtroom voluntarily,

they would have thus consented to the proceeding

in the courtroom, but not at some other place.

(Citing cases) .

"The second ground of reversal is

because of the communication by the court to the

jury. It is error for the court to instruct or

communicate with the jury in the absence of coun-

sel and without notice to them. (Citing cases) .

"Not all error, however, is reversible

error. If the record should affirmatively show

that the appellant was prejudiced, there is reversible

error. (Citing cases). On the other hand, if the

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs3243

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3243

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3243#page/n232/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

courtroom, citing, voluntarily, themselves, reversible, proceeding, thus, supposed, sented, sel, right, reversal, presence, prejudiced, instruct

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

voluntarily absenting, thus consented, sented themselves, courtroom voluntarily, coun sel, absenting themselves, ab sented

Document Status: UGLY