Can a defendant in a criminal case waive his right to be mentally present at trial by not eating a lunch provided to him?

The majority also cites another case mentioned in the People's brief, People v. Rogers (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 403, 415 (Rogers). The Rogers court found the defendantwho induced insulin shock in court then refused to eat a lunch provided to him, which would have mitigated the conditionhad waived his right to be mentally present at trial. (Id. at p. 413 [noting the issue in the case was "whether a defendant in a felony case can waive his right to be mentally present at his trial by voluntarily absenting his mental self after the trial has commenced"].) However, the defendant there had a long history of delaying and obstructing the judicial process and there was evidence he had previously feigned symptoms in court. The trial court had nonetheless accommodated the defendant by granting numerous continuances during the pendency of the matter. (Id. at pp. 412-413 [noting the trial court had granted 13 continuances within a seven-month period, "all based on the defendant's claim of his ill health" and despite the existence of "evidence of malingering on the part of the defendant"].) Since the Rogers defendant had repeatedly engaged in disruptive incidents in court and, on the day in question, refused to eat a lunch that would have mitigated his condition, the trial court there properly inferred that the defendant was intentionally thwarting the judicial process

Page 32