People v. Hassen

Decision Date29 June 2015
Docket NumberSupreme Court Case No. 13SC356
Citation351 P.3d 418,2015 CO 49
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Omer Kelil HASSEN, Respondent.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Attorneys for Petitioner: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Erin K. Grundy, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado.

Attorneys for Respondent: Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender, Michael C. Mattis, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado.

En Banc

Opinion

CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 At the trial of Respondent Omer Kelil Hassen, the trial court completely closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers. We granted certiorari to consider whether this closure constituted structural error.1 We hold that the closure violated Hassen's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. In so doing, we reject the People's argument that the closure was so trivial that it did not implicate Hassen's Sixth Amendment right. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶ 2 The People charged Hassen with possession of a schedule II controlled substance—second offense; possession with intent to distribute a schedule II controlled substance—second offense; and three habitual counts. On the second day of trial, the People intended to call Officer S.P. Before doing so, the prosecutor requested that the trial court close the courtroom because spectators might recognize Officer S.P., who was working undercover at the time. The trial court granted the request over Hassen's objection, and it evicted the entire public from the courtroom, including members of Hassen's family. Hassen then requested a limiting instruction, and the trial court informed the jury that it should not view Officer S.P. differently from any other witness.

¶ 3 Later that morning, the prosecution made the same request for a second undercover witness, Officer E.W. The trial court again closed the courtroom entirely (Hassen renewed his objection), and it issued a limiting instruction. The jury ultimately acquitted Hassen of distribution but found him guilty of possession.

¶ 4 Hassen appealed, arguing that the closure of the courtroom violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court of appeals agreed, holding that the closure failed to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's four-part test in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). People v. Hassen, 2013 COA 16M, ¶ 12, ––– P.3d ––––, as modified on denial of reh'g (Apr. 25, 2013). Because the court of appeals also concluded that “the exclusion of the public was more than a momentary and fleeting occurrence,” it remanded Hassen's case for a new trial. Id. at ¶ 23. We granted certiorari.

II. Standard of Review

¶ 5 A trial court's decision to close the courtroom presents a mixed question of law and fact. See United States v. Al–Smadi, 15 F.3d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1994). In reviewing such questions, we accept the trial court's findings of fact absent an abuse of discretion, but we review the court's legal conclusions de novo.” Pena–Rodriguez v. People, 2015 CO 31, ¶ 8, 350 P.3d 287.

III. Analysis

¶ 6 To resolve whether the trial court's closure violated Hassen's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, we first examine both the right itself and the Supreme Court's analysis of the right in Waller. We then conclude that the trial court failed to comply with Waller and that this failure constituted structural error, requiring a new trial. In so doing, we reject the People's argument that the closure was so trivial that it did not implicate Hassen's Sixth Amendment right.

A. The Sixth Amendment Right to a Public Trial

¶ 7 Both the United States and the Colorado Constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to a public trial. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV ; Colo. Const. art. II, § 16. When the trial court erroneously deprives the defendant of his public trial right, the error is structural in nature. Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 10, 288 P.3d 116, 119 ; accord United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148–49, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006). Structural errors “are not amenable to either a harmless error or a plain error analysis because such errors affect the framework within which the trial proceeds, and are not errors in the trial process itself.” Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1, 7 (Colo. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148, 126 S.Ct. 2557. Therefore, [t]hey require automatic reversal without individualized analysis of how the error impairs the reliability of the judgment of conviction.” People v. Flockhart, 2013 CO 42, ¶ 17, 304 P.3d 227, 232.2

¶ 8 Although the public trial right is enshrined in the Constitution—and although erroneous deprivation of the right constitutes structural error—the right itself is not absolute. SeeWaller, 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. 2210. It may yield to competing interests, including “the government's interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information.” Id. The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that [s]uch circumstances will be rare” and that “the balance of interests must be struck with special care.” Id.

¶ 9 In Waller, the Court articulated four requirements that a trial court must meet in order to validly close the courtroom. First, “the party seeking to close the [proceeding] must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.” Id. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210. Second, “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest.” Id. Third, “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding.” Id. Finally, the trial court “must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id. Regarding the third element, the Court has since reiterated that [t]rial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials.” Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 215, 130 S.Ct. 721, 175 L.Ed.2d 675 (2010) (per curiam) (emphasis added).

¶ 10 With this framework in mind, we now consider whether the trial court's total closure of the courtroom violated Hassen's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

B. The Closure Violated Hassen's Sixth Amendment Right to a Public Trial

¶ 11 It is undisputed that the trial court did not formally apply Waller. The People argue, however, that this was a mere oversight; they suggest that even though the trial court did not mechanically apply Waller pro forma, the closure itself substantively satisfied the Waller requirements. We disagree. The record clearly establishes that the closure here failed to comply not only with the letter of Waller, but also with its spirit.

¶ 12 The People contend that protecting the identities of the undercover officers constituted “an overriding interest” in accordance with Waller's first element. That is a matter of debate. See People v. Echevarria, 21 N.Y.3d 1, 966 N.Y.S.2d 747, 989 N.E.2d 9, 15–16 (2013) (recognizing that [t]he safety of law enforcement officers unquestionably may constitute an overriding interest” but that “the proponent of closure must demonstrate a substantial probability that the identified interest will be prejudiced by an open courtroom” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Press–Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) )). But we need not resolve this debate here. Even assuming, arguendo, that concern for the officers' safety satisfied the first Waller prong, the closure met none of the remaining requirements. Although a “closure must be no broader than necessary,” Waller , 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210, here the trial court excluded the entire public, including Hassen's family. Moreover, the trial court failed to consider any potential alternatives to closing the courtroom. Finally, it made no specific findings in support of the closure, instead simply stating, “I'll close the courtroom for this witness over [Hassen's] objection.” Therefore, because the closure failed to comply with at least three of the four Waller prerequisites, the People's asserted interest in securing the officers' safety cannot render the closure permissible. Cf . Presley , 558 U.S. at 216, 130 S.Ct. 721 ([E]ven assuming, arguendo , that the trial court had an overriding interest in closing [the courtroom], it was still incumbent upon it to consider all reasonable alternatives to closure. It did not, and that is all this Court needs to decide.”).

¶ 13 The People nevertheless insist that even if the closure failed to comply with Waller, it was so trivial that it did not implicate Hassen's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. In so doing, the People encourage us to import the “triviality” analysis from the Second Circuit's decision in Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1996). In that case, the district court closed the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover witness. Id. at 41. Following that witness's testimony, the defendant briefly took the stand, but the district court neglected to reopen the courtroom due to “an administerial mistake.” Id. Shortly thereafter, defense counsel alerted the court that the courtroom had remained closed during the defendant's testimony, and she moved for a mistrial. Id.

The district court denied the motion, finding “that no prejudice can be shown against the defendant in terms of this administerial mistake.” Id. at 42.

¶ 14 The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that “even an unjustified closure may, on its facts, be so trivial as not to violate” a defendant's right to a public trial. Id. at 40. The court was careful to distinguish between triviality analysis and harmless error review:

A triviality standard, properly understood, does not dismiss a defendant's claim on the grounds that the defendant was guilty anyway or that he did not suffer “prejudice” or “specific injury.” It is, in other words, very different from a harmless error inquiry. It looks, rather, to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Stackhouse v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2015
    ...of the judgment of conviction. Examples of these errors include ... denial of the right to a public trial." (citations omitted)); People v. Hassen, 2015 CO 49, ¶ 18, ––– P.3d –––– (stating that "[w]hen the trial court closes the courtroom over a defendant's objection, it must satisfy the fo......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 1, 2020
    ...Trial1. Standard of Review ¶14 We review a trial court's decision to close the courtroom as a mixed question of law and fact. People v. Hassen , 2015 CO 49, ¶ 5, 351 P.3d 418, 420. Thus, "we accept the trial court's findings of fact absent an abuse of discretion, but we review the court's l......
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 31, 2022
    ...guarantee criminal defendants the right to a public trial." People v. Jones , 2020 CO 45, ¶ 15, 464 P.3d 735, 739 (quoting People v. Hassen , 2015 CO 49, ¶ 7, 351 P.3d 418, 420 ); see U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV ; Colo. Const. art. II, § 16. ¶17 As we explained in Jones , a public trial pro......
  • People v. Radford
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2020
    ...unnecessary to adopt Peterson 's "triviality framework," I conclude that the exclusion here clearly was not trivial. See, e.g. , People v. Hassen , 2015 CO 49, ¶ 17, 351 P.3d 418. I would hold that the trial court violated defendant's sixth amendment right to a public trial and the public's......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Rules and C.R.S. of Evidence Annotated (CBA)
    • Invalid date
    ...right to a public trial violated by complete closure of courtroom during testimony of two undercover officers. People v. Hassen, 2015 CO 49, 351 P.3d 423. By closing courtroom to all spectators under 18 years of age for a significant portion of the trial, the court committed structural erro......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT