California Court of Appeal

In a case in which the trial judge after a lunch break directed the plaintiffs' counsel to resume the direct examination of a key witness while defense counsel was not yet back from lunch, the defendant's claim of a due process violation is held to be meritless, where: 1) Code of Civil Procedure section 594 authorizes the trial court, upon proper notice, to proceed with trial in the absence of a party; 2) defense counsel did not assert any objection that questioning of the witness had begun in his absence; and 3) the defendant could not show he was prejudiced by his counsel's very brief absence from the afternoon session on the first day of trial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/16/2012
• Published 03/19/2012

Judges

• Klein

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Nate G. Kraut, Donna Bullock Carrera