Does a defendant have a statutory right to be present at trial under section 977 of the California Criminal Code?

⁴ In 1968, the lower court in People v. Semecal understandably focused on section 1043, and not section 977, because at the time only section 1043 required a defendant to be personally present at trial. (People v. Semecal, supra, 264 Cal.App.2d at pp. Supp. 988990, 69 Cal.Rptr. 761 ; see ante, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 276277, 366 P.3d at p. 61 [before 1968 amendment, 977 required felony defendant's presence at arraignment only].) Nonetheless, given that both section 977 and section 1043"implement the state constitutional protection" (People v. Gutierrez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1202, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 63 P.3d 1000 ), we see no basis to reject the court's general observations about a defendant's statutory right to presence in this context.