Utah Court of Appeals
What inquiry must courts conduct before proceeding with trial in absentia? State v. Marshall Explained
Summary
Marshall was late to his jury trial on drug possession charges, and the court proceeded in absentia for the first fifty minutes before he arrived. The court made an inadequate inquiry into whether his absence was voluntary before starting trial. Marshall was convicted and appealed both the trial court’s decision to proceed without him and his counsel’s failure to object to expert testimony.
Analysis
In State v. Marshall, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical procedural requirements courts must follow when a defendant fails to appear for trial. The case provides important guidance on the inquiry process required before proceeding in absentia.
Background and Facts
Damon Marshall was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute after police found nearly seven grams of heroin on him during a traffic stop. When his jury trial was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., Marshall was absent. After waiting thirty minutes, the prosecutor moved to proceed in absentia, arguing Marshall had “voluntarily decided not to appear.” Defense counsel opposed the motion, noting there was no evidence of voluntary absence. The court granted the State’s motion and began trial. Marshall arrived approximately fifty minutes later and remained present for the remainder of trial.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the district court conducted an adequate inquiry into the voluntariness of Marshall’s absence before proceeding with trial. Marshall also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to expert testimony stating he possessed heroin “with the intent to distribute.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals found the district court’s inquiry was inadequate in two respects. First, the court never required the State to provide evidence that Marshall’s absence was voluntary, instead accepting the prosecutor’s unsupported conclusion. Second, any meaningful inquiry occurred after trial in the context of determining custody before sentencing, not before the decision to proceed in absentia.
However, the court applied a rebuttable presumption of prejudice standard, allowing the State to prove the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the overwhelming evidence against Marshall—including nearly seven grams of heroin packaged for individual sale—the court found any prejudice from the inadequate inquiry was harmless. The ineffective assistance claim also failed for lack of prejudice.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that courts cannot presume voluntary absence based solely on non-appearance. The State must provide at least minimal evidence supporting voluntariness, and courts should conduct reasonable inquiries, including having counsel attempt to contact the defendant and verifying the defendant is not incarcerated. When constitutional errors like inadequate absence inquiries occur, courts will apply heightened harmless error analysis, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Marshall
Citation
2025 UT App 79
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20230383-CA
Date Decided
May 22, 2025
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The district court’s failure to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether a defendant’s absence was voluntary before proceeding with trial in absentia creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, but where overwhelming evidence supports the conviction, any error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Standard of Review
Correctness for whether the trial court’s inquiry regarding the voluntariness of a defendant’s absence was properly conducted; clear error for whether a defendant is voluntarily absent
Practice Tip
When a defendant fails to appear for trial, ensure the State provides evidence supporting voluntary absence and conduct proper inquiry before proceeding in absentia, rather than relying on assumptions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.