Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah
110 U.S. 574 (1884)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a felony prosecution, the defendant's right to be personally present at the trial extends to every stage where substantial rights may be affected, including the empaneling of the jury. This statutory right is essential for due process and cannot be waived by the accused.
Facts:
- The defendant, Hopt, was charged with the murder of John F. Turner.
- After Turner's death, his father left his body in a wooden coffin at a railroad depot in Salt Lake City.
- A surgeon performed a post-mortem examination on a body at that same depot.
- The identity of the body examined by the surgeon was a material issue at trial, as the surgeon did not personally know Turner.
- A man named Fowler, who was not a sworn witness, identified the body to the surgeon as being Turner's.
- Hopt was later arrested in Cheyenne, Wyoming by a detective named Carr.
- Shortly after his arrest, Hopt made a confession to Carr while being escorted to jail.
Procedural Posture:
- Hopt was indicted for murder in a trial court in the Territory of Utah.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Hopt of murder and judgment was entered.
- Hopt appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.
- The Territorial Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and judgment of the trial court.
- Hopt then sought review from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the trial of challenges to potential jurors for actual bias, conducted outside the presence of the court and the felony defendant, violate the defendant's statutory right to be personally present at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harlan
Yes. Conducting the trial of challenges to potential jurors outside the defendant's presence violates a felony defendant's statutory right to be personally present at every substantial stage of the trial. The Utah Criminal Code requires the defendant's personal presence at 'the trial' for any felony charge. The court reasoned that the trial commences not merely when the jury is sworn, but at least from the time the work of empaneling the jury begins, as the selection of an impartial jury is a substantial right critical to the defense. The court further held that this right is non-waivable, reasoning that the public has an interest in the life and liberty of the accused, and legal procedures essential to the deprivation of life or liberty cannot be dispensed with by the consent of the accused. To proceed otherwise would be a deprivation of liberty without the due process of law required by the Constitution.
Analysis:
This case is significant for defining the scope of a criminal defendant's right to be present during trial proceedings. It establishes that the 'trial' begins with jury selection (voir dire), not merely with the presentation of evidence, and that presence during this critical stage is a non-waivable right in felony cases. This holding reinforces the idea that certain procedural safeguards protect not only the defendant but also the public's interest in the integrity and fairness of the judicial process. The decision has had a lasting impact on criminal procedure, cementing the defendant's role as an active participant in all substantive phases of their own trial.
Unlock the full brief for Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah