Pritchett v. State, 88-02727
| Decision Date | 20 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-02727,88-02727 |
| Citation | 566 So.2d 6 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1881 Jerry PRITCHETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1990.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michele Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Jerry Pritchett, who was convicted of and sentenced for capital sexual battery, has appealed on three grounds, one of which has merit and requires us to reverse and remand for a new trial.
During the trial, the state requested that the courtroom be cleared, while the minor victim testified. Pritchett objected on the ground that clearing the courtroom would deny him the right to a public trial. Over Pritchett's objection, the trial court ordered that the courtroom be cleared of all spectators during the minor victim's testimony.
On appeal, Pritchett argued that the court abridged his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when it ordered the courtroom to be cleared of all spectators, pursuant to section 918.16, Florida Statutes (1987). 1 He contends that the statute is unconstitutional as written because it does not allow judicial discretion or exceptions for closure. In the alternative, he submits that the statute was unconstitutional as applied in his case. We disagree with Pritchett's assertion that the statute is unconstitutional and uphold the constitutionality of the statute upon the authority of Robertson v. State, 64 Fla. 437, 60 So. 118 (1912); Douglas v. State, 328 So.2d 18 (Fla.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 871, 97 S.Ct. 185, 50 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976). However, we agree that the application of the statute was unconstitutional, because the trial court failed to make any findings to justify the closure. See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984).
Both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution provide the accused with the right to a public trial. While we recognize that the right of access in a criminal trial is not absolute, the circumstances allowing closure are limited. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). In order to justify any type of closure, whether the closure is total or partial, the court must find "that a denial of such right is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." 457 U.S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. at 2620.
The appropriate analysis to follow to determine whether a particular case warrants closure is set forth in Waller. There are four prerequisites that must be satisfied before the presumption of openness may be overcome. First, the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; second, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; third, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceedings; and fourth, the court must make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alvarez v. State
...alternatives to closing the proceedings; and fourth, the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Pritchett v. State, 566 So.2d 6, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 47, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 Section 918.16 requires the closure of a courtro......
-
Williams v. State
...for closure. Id. at 549 (citations omitted). The principles applicable to the right to a public trial were discussed in Pritchett v. State, 566 So.2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), where the court Both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16 of the Florida Con......
-
Jones v. State, 3D04-815.
...make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller, 467 U.S. at 47, 104 S.Ct. at 2215." 821 So.2d at 426 (quoting Pritchett v. State, 566 So.2d 6, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)). 4. In so ruling, the Fourth District receded from Williams v. State, 736 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which had held......
-
Alonso v. State, 3D00-995.
...and fourth, the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller, 467 U.S. at 47, 104 S.Ct. at 2215. Pritchett v. State, 566 So.2d 6, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Roberts v. State, 816 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Whitson v. State, 791 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Contr......
-
Daniel Levitas, Scaling Waller: How Courts Have Eroded the Sixth Amendment Public Trial Right
...persons authorized under state law to be present during testimony of a minor victim in a sex offense prosecution); Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.-2d 1990) (holding state trial closure statute unconstitutional as applied when the trial court cleared the courtroom pu......
-
Scaling Waller: How Courts Have Eroded the Sixth Amendment Public Trial Right
...persons authorized under state law to be present during testimony of a minor victim in a sex offense prosecution); Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.-2d 1990) (holding state trial closure statute unconstitutional as applied when the trial court cleared the courtroom pu......