Submitted Dec. 17, 1986.
Decided April 13, 1987.
Per Curiam:
Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in proceeding with his trial in absentia. We agree.
The trial judge failed to find that appellant had received notice of his right to be present at trial and a warning that he would be tried in his absence should he fail to attend, as required by Criminal Practice Rule 3. This was an error. State v. Jackson,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.