Heywood v. State

45 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. State

    347 Ga. App. 831 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that testimony by mobile-service-provider's records custodian sufficiently authenticated text messages

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Heywood v. State , 292 Ga. 771, 774 (3), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013). (a) All transcribed bench conferences during the actual trial involved either legal arguments regarding objections, evidentiary issues, proper trial procedure, or logistical matters such as when to take breaks in the proceedings.

  2. Bernier v. State

    354 Ga. App. 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Peterson v. State , 284 Ga. 275, 279, 663 S.E.2d 164 (2008). However, a defendant may waive this right in different ways, including by acquiescing to counsel’s waiver of the right. Heywood v. State , 292 Ga. 771, 775 (3), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013).Here, because potential jurors were excused by the trial court during two of the bench conferences at Bernier’s trial, and potential jurors answered questions about their experiences with Ambien at another, Bernier had a right to be present.

  3. Bagwell v. State

    329 Ga. App. 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 807(6), 505 S.E.2d 731 (1998) (citation and emphasis omitted).Concerning a defendant's absence from bench conferences, the Supreme Court of Georgia espoused recently in Heywood v. State : 292 Ga. 771, 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013).Bench conferences, or sidebars, are a common occurrence during jury trials, allowing the attorneys for the parties to discuss matters with the judge without being heard by the jury and without the delays inherent in excusing the jurors from the courtroom and bringing them back in. Most bench

  4. Reed v. The State

    314 Ga. 534 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining the efforts of counsel and the trial court to recreate a record during motion for new trial proceedings of what occurred at bench conferences that were not transcribed in order to determine whether Reed was denied his right to be present at those conferences and if so, whether he acquiesced to the denial of that right

    (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Heywood v. State , 292 Ga. 771, 774 (3), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013) (defendant's absence from such bench conferences did not violate his right to be present). Moreover,

  5. Prickett v. State

    314 Ga. 435 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    Remanding case to trial court for resentencing and decision as to which verdicts should be merged

    (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Heywood v. State , 292 Ga. 771, 774 (3), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013) (defendant's absence from such bench conferences did not violate his right to be present). Moreover, a defendant may waive the constitutional right to be present.

  6. Nesby v. State

    310 Ga. 757 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that even if defendant's right to be present was implicated by bench conference that occurred during voir dire, defendant was in court before and after bench conference, was in a position to hear the issues to which it related and discussed those issues with his counsel, raised no objection to counsel's conduct or trial court's decision on the issues, and, thus, acquiesced to his absence

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Heywood v. State , 292 Ga. 771, 774 (3), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013). "[T]he constitutional right to be present does not extend to situations where the defendant's presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow."

  7. Wilson v. State

    897 S.E.2d 597 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Given these circumstances, Wilson cannot establish a violation of OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (4).See Heywoodv.State, 292 Ga. 771, 776-77 (4) (b), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013) (holding that current version of OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (4) requires prosecutor to disclose written report made by an expert witness regarding her opinions or prepare a written version of an expert’s oral report, if such is made, and serve defense counsel with same at least ten days before trial); Lovev.State, 349 Ga. App. 741, 750 (4) (b), 824 S.E.2d 745 (2019) (same).Williams, 302 Ga, at 479 (II), 807 S.E.2d 350.

  8. Pruitt v. State

    354 Ga. App. 73 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Again, Pruitt did not have a right to be present at this conference. See generally Heywood v. State , 292 Ga. 771, 774 (3), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013) (defendant has no right to be present at bench conferences that involve logistical and procedural matters). At the third conference, the parties agreed to excuse a potential juror who was an employee of the District Attorney’s office.

  9. Fordham v. State

    352 Ga. App. 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    Furthermore, our Supreme Court has explained that a defendant’s failure to object to his exclusion from a bench conference, after the trial court has advised those in the courtroom, including the defendant, about the topic discussed constitutes acquiescence. See Heywood v. State , 292 Ga. 771, 775 (3), 743 S.E.2d 12 (2013) ; see also Jackson v. State , 278 Ga. 235, 237 (3), 599 S.E.2d 129 (2004) (holding that appellants acquiesced in the proceedings when their counsel made no objection to their exclusion from an in-chambers conference and appellants remained silent after the subject was brought to their attention). Here, during jury selection, the prosecutor asked potential jurors if there was any prejudice or bias resting upon their minds either for or against the accused.

  10. Reed v. State

    No. S22A0530 (Ga. Sep. 7, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    . See also Heywood v. State, 292 Ga. 771, 774 (3) (743 S.E.2d 12) (2013) (defendant's absence from such bench conferences did not violate his right to be present).