PMM v. State
Decision Date | 30 December 1999 |
Parties | P.M.M. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kimberly J. Dobbs-Ramey, Decatur, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Norbert H. Williams, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, P.M.M.,1 was convicted of second-degree rape, a violation of § 13A-6-62, Ala.Code 1975, first-degree sexual abuse, a violation of § 13A-6-6, Ala.Code 1975, and three counts of first-degree sodomy, a violation of § 13A-6-63, Ala.Code 1975. For each sodomy conviction, P.M.M. was sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment. For the rape conviction, P.M.M. was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Additionally, for the sexual abuse conviction, P.M.M. was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively.
P.M.M. maintains that the trial court erred in granting the state's motion to close the courtroom to the public. Specifically, he argues that the denial of a public trial violated his rights under Article 1, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, and under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In this case, the state moved to close the courtroom and requested that nonessential personnel be excluded from the proceedings. The defense objected to the removal of family and friends of P.M.M., and stated that P.M.M. was constitutionally entitled to a public hearing. The trial court overruled P.M.M.'s objection and granted the state's motion to close the courtroom to all nonessential personnel. The trial court determined the following:
(R. 14.) After the close of the state's case, the following transpired:
(R. 513.)
The state asserts that this issue was not preserved. However, our review of the record indicates that P.M.M. preserved this issue for review. The state cites Ex parte Judd, 694 So.2d 1294 (Ala. 1997), as its authority stating that one seeking to appeal from the granting of a motion to close proceedings to the public has the burden of preserving "for the record the proceedings on the motion to close the courtroom, the considerations that led to the closure of the courtroom, [and] whether the courtroom remained closed after the victim's testimony." 694 So.2d at 1297. In this case, the proceedings on the motion to close the courtroom and the trial court's reasoning that the nature of the case and the ages of the children required the closure of the courtroom were, in fact, contained in the record on appeal. Additionally, the record indicates that the courtroom remained closed to P.M.M.'s and the victims' friends and relatives from the beginning of trial until the closing arguments. Thus, the P.M.M. satisfied his burden of providing this Court with an adequate record. See Ex parte Judd, 694 So.2d at 1297, citing Montgomery v. State, 504 So.2d 370, 372 (Ala.Cr.App.1987).
Next, we address whether the P.M.M.'s constitutional right to a public trial was violated.
Article I, § 6, Ala. Const.1901, guarantees that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to ... a speedy, public trial." The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in pertinent part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a public and speedy trial."
Section 12-21-202, Ala.Code 1975, states:
"In all prosecutions for rape and assault with intent to ravish, the court may, in its own discretion, exclude from the courtroom all persons, except such as may be necessary in the conduct of the trial; and, in all other cases where the evidence is vulgar, obscene or relates to the improper acts of the sexes and tends to debauch the morals of the young, the presiding judge shall have the right, by and with consent and agreement of the defendant, in his discretion and on his own motion, or on the motion of the plaintiffs or defendants or their attorneys, to hear and try the said case after clearing the courtroom of all or any portion of the audience whose presence is not necessary."
In Ex parte Judd, 694 So.2d 1294 (Ala. 1997), this Court stated:
Additionally, in Ex parte Judd, the Supreme Court of Alabama stated:
694 So.2d at 1297. (Emphasis added.)
The question whether closure is proper is ultimately a constitutional one. See Ex parte Judd. See also State v. Morin, [No. C4-98-2093, September 14, 1999] (Minn.App.1999) (unpublished) (the partial closure of the courtroom was proper where, in addition to satisfying requirements of a state statute, the trial court satisfied the Waller requirements by reviewing psychological records and videotaped interviews, hearing comments from the victims, determining that the well-being of the child was an overriding interest, and finding no reasonable alternative other than to close the courtroom during the victim's testimony).
A trial court's determination concerning the attendance of spectators in the courtroom will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. See Lehr v. State, 398 So.2d 791 (Ala.Cr. App.1981).
The trial court in this case closed the courtroom during the testimony of all of the witnesses. During the trial, the three victims testified initially, and then several counselors, Department of Human Resources employees, Child Advocacy Center employees, an aunt of the victims, P.M.M.'s preacher, a Cullman County Sheriffs Department investigator, P.M.M.'s daughter, and P.M.M. testified. The record indicates that the prosecution moved for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State, CR–97–1258.
...prejudice); Waller, 467 U.S. at 49–50, 104 S.Ct. 2210 ; Ex parte McCombs, 24 So.3d 1175, 1178 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) ; P.M.M. v. State, 762 So.2d 384, 388 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). Consequently, this Court reverses Smith's sentence of death, and this cause is remanded to the circuit court with inst......
-
Smith v. State
...a showing of prejudice); Waller, 467 U.S. at 49-50; Ex parte McCombs, 24 So. 3d 1175, 1178 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009); P.M.M. v. State, 762 So. 2d 384, 388 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). Consequently, this Court reverses Smith's sentence of death, and this cause is remanded to the circuit court with i......
-
Hall v. State
...attendance of spectators in the courtroom will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion." P.M.M. v. State , 762 So.2d 384, 387 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), citing Lehr v. State , 398 So.2d 791 (Ala.Crim.App.1981). Moreover, "a closure of the courtroom during some or all o......