Reynolds v. State
Decision Date | 24 January 1961 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 584 |
Parties | Orval M. REYNOLDS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Radney & Lonergan, Alexander City, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and John G. Bookout, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appellant has been adjudged guilty on a charge of indecent molestation of a child under sixteen years of age as denounced by Act No. 397, Acts of Alabama 1955, page 932 (Sec. 326(2), Tit. 14, Code of Alabama 1940, Pocket Part).
The record shows that 'the jury having been selected and sworn, children under eighteen have been excluded from the courtroom by the court,--the witnesses were sworn and placed under the rule.
'Mr. Radney: Your Honor, we would like for the record to reflect that the judge had all children under the age of eighteen excluded from the courtroom, and we expressly object to that ruling and reserve an exception thereto.
Article I, Sec. 6, Constitution of Alabama, 1901, provides that 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to * * * a speedy, public trial.' This provision is of course a fundamental constitutional right found in substance in the constitutions of every state and in the Federal constitution.
In our State the right to a public trial is absolute except as limited by Article 6, Sec. 169, Constitution of Alabama 1901. This Article provides that 'in all prosecutions for rape and assault with intent to ravish, the court may, in its discretion, exclude from the courtroom all persons, except such as may be necessary in the conduct of the trial.'
So careful have our courts been in seeing that the constitutional privilege of a public trial is protected and kept intact that they have held that Sec. 169, supra, must be limited exclusively to rape, and assault with intent to ravish, and cannot be extended to other offenses even though kindred in the aspect of sexuality, and it has been held error to exclude the public from trials involving carnal knowledge, seduction, and mayhem by castration. See Hull v. State, 232 Ala. 281, 167 So. 553; Stewart v. State, 18 Ala.App. 622, 93 So. 274; Wade v. State, 207 Ala. 1, 92 So. 101.
In ex parte Wade, 207 Ala. 241, 92 So. 104, 105, we find the court saying:
'Given the right to a 'public trial,' it is violated if the judicial authority is exerted in any wise to its denial.'
The Attorney General in his brief relies upon the following statement to be found in the first Wade case supra, 207 Ala. 1, 92 So. 101, 102:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Garrett
...hardly be deemed children of 'tender age.' Males of that age are subject to military service. In some states persons of that age can vote." Id. at 204; see also re G.B. at ¶ 39. Moreover, the closure order was not limited in scope or duration but continued for the entire trial. {¶ 55} The s......
-
Ex parte Judd
...reversed, 340 So.2d 74, 79 (Ala.1976); Hull v. State, 232 Ala. 281, 167 So. 553 (1936). Cf. Reynolds v. State, 41 Ala.App. 202, 203, 126 So.2d 497, 497 (1961), which recognized the court's discretion to exclude children of tender years from the courtroom and to exclude such persons as neces......
-
People ex rel. G.B.
...excluding all children have warned that such an "approach may be carried too far." Marshall , 258 N.E.2d at 630. Reynolds v. State , 41 Ala.App. 202, 126 So.2d 497 (1961), is illustrative.¶ 35 There, the court held that because excluding from the courtroom all children under age eighteen we......
-
Marshall v. State
...4 L.Ed.2d 2128. Even this approach may be carried too far, however, as noted by the Alabama court in the case of Reynolds v. State (1961), 41 Ala.App. 202, 126 So.2d 497. In the instant case the judge ordered all members of the 'public' except the press excluded. Although there is a substan......