R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 43
The defendant shall be present at the arraignment and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by these rules. The defendant shall be present at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, except that the defendant may be excluded from the proceedings if, after appropriate warning, the defendant persists in acting in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the trial cannot be carried on with the defendant in the courtroom.The defendant's voluntary absence after the trial has been commenced in the defendant's presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to and including the return of the verdict. A corporation may appear by an attorney for all purposes. In prosecutions for offenses punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year or both, the court, with the written consent of the defendant, may permit arraignment, plea, trial, and imposition of sentence in the defendant's absence. The defendant's presence is not required at a reduction of sentence under Rule 35.
R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 43
1972 Notes
This rule is the same as Federal Rule 43 with one major change--the addition of the second sentence which is designed to reflect the recent Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). In that case the Court held that the Constitutional right to confrontation does not bar a trial court, in appropriate circumstances, from excluding an obstreperous defendant from the trial. Presumably, the right to confrontation and presence in the courtroom under Article 1, § 10 of the Rhode Island Constitution (see, e.g., Trombley v. Langlois, 91 R.I. 328, 163 A.2d 25 (1960)) is similarly conditioned upon the defendant abstaining from conduct "so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom." Illinois v. Allen, supra at 343. Of course, as stated in Allen, exclusion is not the only technique available to a trial judge for dealing with an obstreperous defendant and should be used with extreme caution.