case that appellant acquiesced in her absence from the challenged bench conferences. Our review of the record demonstrates these conferences occurred during jury selection, at a time when the trial judge and counsel were discussing potential motions to strike venire members following the general voir dire. While appellant clearly had the right to be present for and to hear the matters discussed in the bench conferences, appellant was in the courtroom when, at the conclusion of each bench conference, the trial judge asked for motions to strike members of the panel that had just been questioned, counsel stated their reasons for wanting to strike a particular member for cause or their objection to opposing counsel’s motion to strike, and the trial court announced its ruling 725) (2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this enumeration is without
holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal holding that defendant acquiesced to counsels waiver of right to be present at bench conference where trial judge advised everyone in courtroom including defendant about the topic of the bench conference and defendant raised no objection to his absence holding defense counsel waived objection where he remained silent despite the district courts specific inquiry during a side bar conference whether there were any concerns about closing the courtroom to the public holding that the defendants presence at an in camera conference between the judge defense counsel and a juror regarding the jurors possible bias while not constitutionally mandated was required by rule 43 holding that defendant acquiesced in inchambers conference occurring in his absence when trial court discussed the subject of the conference and its ruling and neither defense counsel nor defendant raised an objection