With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case. This ease is set for trial November 8th, next week. Idaho Criminal Rule 12 gives a district court discretion to shorten or enlarge the time for bringing a hearing on pretrial motions or to excuse a party’s noncompliance with deadlines for bringing a hearing. In this case, however, the district court, in effect, refused to hear Ruperd’s motion to suppress at a later time as a sanction for his failure to appear. Nothing in I.C.R. 12 gives the district court the discretion to treat a defendant’s failure to appear as a waiver of his or her right to have a hearing on a timely motion. While Idaho appellate authority is silent on this particular issue, authority exists from other jurisdictions that have addressed it. See, e.g., People v. Martinez, 166 P.3d 223, 224 (Colo.Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>); Robinson v. Commonwealth, 445 Mass. 280, 837

A: holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute
B: holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error
C: holding that when defendant failed to appear at scheduled suppression hearing the court could have decided the motion in defendants absence but it did not have the authority to refuse to consider it
D: holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone
B.