State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677 (Utah 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677 (Utah 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1992 · …a defendant charged with a crime is entitled to be present at all stages of trial. at p. 678 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 · …his or her absence from the trial would be imputed, not to the defendant, but to the custodian. at p. 678 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 · …when a defendant is in custody, he is not free to make a voluntary decision about whether or not he will attend the court proceedings. at p. 678 ✓
29 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Wanosik (4×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
Utah Ct. App. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
when a defendant is in custody, he is not free to make a voluntary decision about whether or not he will attend the court proceedings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Marshall
Utah Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Trial in Absentia A. The Inquiry ¶17 Marshall argues that the district court “erred when it granted the State’s motion to hold the trial in absentia without requiring the State to show any evidence that [he] had voluntarily chosen to be absent from trial.” ¶18 “A defendant charged with a crime is entitled to be present at all stages of trial.” State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986) (per curiam); see also Utah Const. art.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Millett
Utah Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
But this right “may be waived under certain circumstances if the defendant voluntarily absents himself from the trial.” State 20230449-CA 20 2025 UT App 67 State v. Millett v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Luna
N.J. · 2007 · confidence medium
Other courts have adopted a per se rule that “a defendant is incapable of a voluntary waiver while incarcerated and that a retrial must therefore be granted in every such instance.” Givens, supra, 353 N.J.Super. at 287-88 , 802 A.2d 563 ; see, e.g., State v. Chavez-Inzunza, 145 Ariz. 362 , 701 P.2d 858, 861 (App.1985) (holding that defendant incarcerated in Mexico was not voluntarily absent from trial); State v. Okumura, 58 Haw. 425 , 570 P.2d 848, 851-52 (1977) (holding that court rule allowing trials to proceed in defendant’s absence applied to defendant who escaped or deliberately fai…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wanosik (2×)
Utah · 2003 · confidence medium
The trial court made inadequate inquiry into defendant's ability to appear ... before deciding that he had waived his right to be present at trial. 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). ¶ 14 In Wagstaff , the court of appeals stated that "[v]oluntariness is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances," *942 772 P.2d at 990 , a standard that clearly contemplates some form of inquiry appropriate to the facts of the case, as required by the court of appeals in this case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garza
Wash. · 2003 · confidence medium
Although I would place my reliance on the plain language of the court rule which, by its terms, imposes no notification duty on the involuntarily absent defendant, I note most courts in other jurisdictions which have considered the matter have held that a defendant in custody on other charges cannot waive his or her right to be present at trial as a matter of law because he or she “is not free to make a voluntary decision about whether or not [to] attend the court proceedings,” State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986), and “his [or her] absence from the trial would be imputed, not t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garza
Wash. · 2003 · confidence medium
Although I would place my reliance on the plain language of the court rule which, by its terms, imposes no notification duty on the involuntarily absent defendant, I note most courts in other jurisdictions which have considered the matter have held that a defendant in custody on other charges cannot waive his or her right to be present at trial as a matter of law because he or she "is not free to make a voluntary decision about whether or not ... [to] attend the court proceedings," State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986), and "his [or her] absence from the trial would be imputed, not to …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Givens
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2002 · confidence medium
See United States v. Fontanez, *568 878 F. 2d 33 (2d Cir.1989) (after defendant was taken into custody on another charge, it was improper for the jury to hear readback of testimony in defendant's absence); People v. Liming, 183 Ill.App. 3d 960, 132 Ill.Dec. 308 , 539 N.E. 2d 871 (1989) (held that a defendant who was incarcerated elsewhere at the time of a probation revocation hearing did not voluntarily fail to appear); State v. Houtz, 714 P. 2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986) (a retrial was ordered after the State conceded that the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial after learning that defen…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hubbard
Utah · 2002 · confidence medium
I, § 12 ("In eriminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel ... to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed[.]"); Utah Code Ann. § 77-1-6 (1) (1999) ("In criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled: (a) To appear in person and defend in person or by counsel; ... (f) To a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district where the offense is alleged to have been committed[.]"); State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Atherton
Wash. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Dec. 308 , 539 N.E.2d 871, 872 (1989); State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986); State v. Sainz, 186 Ariz. 470 , 924 P.2d 474, 477-78 (Ariz. App.1996); State v. Chavez-Inzunza, 145 Ariz. 362 , 701 P.2d 858, 861 (Ariz.App.1985). [9] People v. Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343 , 372 N.Y.S.2d 606 , 334 N.E.2d 566, 571 (1975) (finding voluntary waiver where defendant refused to attend trial as part of an inmate-wide boycott of the courts); Commonwealth v. Perez, 757 A.2d 955, 956 (Pa.Super.2000) (finding voluntary waiver where defendant made no attempt to inform court or counsel of his incarceration); Unit…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Atherton
Wash. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Dec. 308 (1989); State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986); State v. Sainz, 186 Ariz. 470 , 924 P.2d 474, 477-78 (Ct. App. 1996); State v. Chavez-Inzunza, 145 Ariz. 362 , 701 P.2d 858, 861 (Ct. App. 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Anderson
Utah · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Burk (2×)
Utah Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
In that case, the Utah Supreme Court held that "[a] defendant charged with a crime is entitled to be present at all stages of trial." Id. at 678 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Gunter
Utah Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986) (per curiam) ("[V jolun-tariness may not be presumed by the trial court."); see also Wanosik I, 2001 UT App 241, ¶ 25 , 31 P.3d 615 ("In this case, the State made no preliminary showing of voluntariness whatever, and the trial court erred by making inadequate inquiry into [the defendant's] ability to appear ... before deciding that he had waived his right to be present...." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), aff'd, 2003 UT 46 , 79 P.3d 937 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Wagstaff
Utah Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677, 678 (Utah 1986) (per curiam); State v. Lee, 585 P.2d 58, 58 (Utah 1978); see also State v. Washington, 34 Wash.App. 410 , 661 P.2d 605 , 607 (1983); Maupin v. State, 694 P.2d 720, 722 (Wyo. 1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Robert Glen HOUTZ, Defendant and Appellant
20608.
Utah Supreme Court.
Feb 6, 1986.
714 P.2d 677
Leo G. Kanell, Milford, for defendant and appellant., David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Defendant Robert Glen Houtz was convicted, in absentia, for automobile homicide, drunk driving, hit and run driving, and failure to report an accident. He claims that the trial court erred in proceeding with the jury trial in defendant’s absence. The State candidly concedes the mistake below and agrees that the convictions should be reversed for retrial.

Defendant’s trial was scheduled for the morning of February 26, 1985, in Beaver, Utah. When defendant did not appear, the court continued the trial until the next morning, February 27, 1985. [1] Defendant again did not appear that morning, and the prosecutor advised the court that he had learned overnight that defendant had been arrested on February 25 in San Diego, California, for drunken driving. [2] After hearing defense counsel’s renewed request for a continuance to obtain defendant’s presence, the court determined that defendant had voluntarily chosen to absent himself from the trial because he had left Utah in violation of his bail. The court proceeded with the trial, and defendant was convicted in his absence.

A defendant charged with a crime is entitled to be present at all stages of trial. Utah Const, art. I, § 12; U.C.A., 1953, § 77-1-6 (1982 ed.). The right to appear and defend in person is a constitutional one, but may be waived under certain circumstances if the defendant voluntarily absents himself from the trial. State v. Lee, Utah, 585 P.2d 58 (1978); State v. Myers, 29 Utah 2d 254, 508 P.2d 41 (1973). However, that voluntariness may not be presumed by the trial court. When a defendant is in custody, he is not free to make a voluntary decision about whether or not he will attend the court proceedings. State v. Aikers, 87 Utah 507, 51 P.2d 1052 (1935); State v. Okumura, 58 Hawaii 425, 570 P.2d 848 (1977). Taken into custody on February 25,1985, in San Diego, defendant cannot be considered to have “voluntarily” refused to appear on February 26 or 27, 1985. Cf. State v. Coles, Utah, 688 P.2d 473 (1984).

In this case, we agree with defendant and the State that the court abused its discretion by not continuing the trial so that defendant’s attendance could be arranged. The trial court made inadequate inquiry into defendant’s ability to appear on February 26 or his subsequent availability before deciding that he had waived his right to be present at the trial. Drope v. [*679] Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 182, 95 S.Ct. 896, 909, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); State v. Okumura, 570 P.2d at 852. A trial continuance need not have been of lengthy duration, particularly since defendant waived extradition and was returned to Beaver within a few days. We are not unmindful of the inconvenience and expense which have resulted to the court, the witnesses, counsel, and others who may have traveled long distances to be present at the trial. However, our constitutional privileges and protections occasionally require that such inconveniences be suffered. Cf. Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 224, 66 S.Ct. 984, 987, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946).

Defendant’s convictions are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on all charges.

1

. The purpose of the continuance was to allow the court to provide a jury panel because the trial judge had been previously advised that defendant would waive his right to the jury trial in open court. When defendant did not appear and no waiver was made, the court was obligated to proceed with a jury trial. U.C.A., 1953, § 77-35-17(c), as amended (1982 ed.).

2

. Although not present, defendant was represented on both days by able trial counsel, who was unaware of defendant’s arrest or whereabouts.