People v. Eppinger

This case presents question as to whether trial court committed plain error by conducting voir dire in absentia after pro se defendant voluntarily absented himself from voir dire proceeding, but appeared and represented himself on all other aspects of his trial. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant's conviction on attempted murder and armed robbery charges, found that trial court had failed to comply with section 115-4.1(a), which permits trial court to start trial without defendant, but only if trial court had previously appointed counsel. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that section 115.4.1(a) did not apply where defendant was in custody at time of voir dire and voluntarily chose to remain in his cell at time voir dire was scheduled.