What is the test for obtaining a written waiver of a defendant's right to be present at jury voir dire?

waiver of his right to be present under section 977 before excusing him. Assuming for the sake of argument that the trial court erred by not obtaining defendant's written waiver of his right to be present as required by section 977, we conclude for two reasons that the error was harmless under our state standard for statutory error. (See People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 598 [any violation of section 977 is statutory and " 'thus "is reversible only if it is reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to defendant absent the error" ' "].)

First, as we have discussed, the record indicates defendant left the jury voir dire voluntarily and with his counsel's agreement, and that he did not request any continuance of the proceedings. Therefore, we have no doubt that he would have executed a written waiver if the court had sought one under section 977. (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 203 [finding error to obtain written waiver harmless when "the record makes clear that defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present, if only orally"].)

Second, assuming for the sake of argument that the court erred under state statutory law in proceeding with jury voir dire in defendant's absence, defendant merely speculates that there was prejudice for various reasons, even arguing the prejudice rises to the level of structural error. For example, he emphasizes the racial, ethnic and gender types of the jurors and alternate jurors, as well as of those for which peremptory challenges were exercised, but states nothing that establishes how his presence could have led to a different result or how the selection of jurors resulted in an unfair trial. Similarly, he points out that the jury struggled with reaching a verdict on count three, which we will discuss further, without explaining how his presence during jury voir dire would have affected this aspect of the jury's deliberations or its verdict. In short, he fails to demonstrate that his absence prejudiced his case. (See People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 360 [stating regarding a speculative claim that defendant's absence from part of jury voir dire prejudiced his case, " '[t]he burden is upon defendant to demonstrate that his absence prejudiced his case or denied him a fair and impartial trial' "].) We reject his claim on this ground as well.

Page 19