State v. Decker
Decision Date | 22 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 20170080,20170080 |
Citation | 907 N.W.2d 378 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Kevin Frank DECKER, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Ladd R. Erickson, Special Assistant Morton County State’s Attorney, Washburn, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Kiara Costa Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶ 1] Kevin Frank Decker appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of disorderly conduct. Decker argues the district court created a structural error by denying his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when court staff excluded one member of the public from jury selection proceedings. He also argues the State presented insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of disorderly conduct. We affirm the judgment, concluding the district court’s exclusion of one member of the public was too trivial to amount to structural error and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
[¶ 2] Decker participated in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline on August 11, 2016, at a construction site on North Dakota state highway 1806. Police cordoned off the site with guarded police tape. Decker stood at the front of the crowd, pressing into the police line. Officer Gruebele stood immediately opposite Decker on the inside of the police line. Gruebele testified that Decker lifted the police tape several times and was warned not to do so. Decker began pushing against Gruebele, who then arrested Decker. Decker testified that the crowd pushed him from behind into Gruebele.
[¶ 3] The State charged Decker with disorderly conduct under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-01. At trial on January 31 and February 1, 2017, the district court directed deputies to prevent potential juror tainting after some potential jurors at a trial scheduled in December of 2016 received copies of a pamphlet on jury nullification and "voting your conscience." Decker joined an objection made by another defendant and asked for a mistrial based on denial of the right to a public trial:
[¶ 4] Attorney Bruce Nestor, unconnected to the cases heard that day, testified deputies restricted his access to the courtroom during voir dire. Another member of the public present in the courtroom during voir dire testified that some seats remained unoccupied. Court staff testified they received orders to keep potential jurors separate from the public and that no seating was available for the public because of the large jury pool. Court staff also indicated they did not advise members of the public they could enter the courtroom after the first jurors entered the jury box and seats in the courtroom became available. The district court reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court case cited in oral argument, Presley v. Georgia , 558 U.S. 209, 130 S.Ct. 721, 175 L.Ed.2d 675 (2010), and denied the motion for mistrial on the following day:
[¶ 5] The jury returned a guilty verdict to the disorderly conduct charge. The district court sentenced Decker to one year of unsupervised probation with fines.
[¶ 6] Decker argues the district court created a structural error by denying one member of the public access to the courtroom during jury selection, thus violating Decker’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. "We apply a de novo standard of review to a claim of a constitutional violation." State v. Aguero , 2010 ND 210, ¶ 16, 791 N.W.2d 1 ; see State v. Peña Garcia , 2012 ND 11, ¶ 6, 812 N.W.2d 328 ().
[¶ 7] Structural errors are violations of the framework of the trial rather than mere procedural errors. Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279, 309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). "[S]ome constitutional rights [are] so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error...."
Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18, 23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
[¶ 8] Structural errors include deprivation of right to counsel, lack of judicial impartiality, racial exclusion from a grand jury, violation of the right to self-represent, and denial of the right to a public trial. Fulminante , 499 U.S. at 309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246. Structural errors are immune to the "invited error" doctrine and do not necessarily require action at the time the error occurs. See State v. White Bird , 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642. "Structural errors ... are constitutional errors ‘so intrinsically harmful as to require automatic reversal’ regardless of whether they have been forfeited or waived." State v. Watkins , 2017 ND 165, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 442 (quoting Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1, 7, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) ). Structural error differs substantially from obvious error, for which a defendant bears the burden of showing either prejudice or an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceeding. See State v. Erickstad , 2000 ND 202, ¶ 22, 620 N.W.2d 136 ( ).
[¶ 9] The rights implicated in structural errors are not absolute. State v. Garcia , 1997 ND 60, ¶ 20, 561 N.W.2d 599 ( ). The U.S. Supreme Court established when the right to a public trial gives way to other interests:
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal. , 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ( ). Four factors must be present to avoid structural error in closing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Martinez
...is invited. Morales , at ¶ 15 ; Rogers , at ¶ 3 ; State v. Rende , 2018 ND 56, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 361 ; State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378 ; Watkins , 2017 ND 165, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 442 ; see State v. White Bird , 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642. These cases did not squarely pre......
-
State v. Rogers
...¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 361. "We apply a de novo standard of review to a claim of a constitutional violation." State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 6, 907 N.W.2d 378 (quoting State v. Aguero , 2010 ND 210, ¶ 16, 791 N.W.2d 1 ). [¶ 4] A structural error is a "defect affecting the framework within which t......
-
State v. Morales
...remanding for new pretrial competency hearing); State v. Pittenger , 2019 ND 22, ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 439 ; State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378 ; State v. Watkins , 2017 ND 165, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 442 ; State v. White Bird , 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642.A [¶16] To review a claime......
-
People v. Lujan
...deliberating jury without counsel or defendant present to ask whether it would render a verdict that day was trivial); State v. Decker , 907 N.W.2d 378, 385 (N.D. 2018) (exclusion of lawyer unconnected with the case during voir dire was trivial). But see United States v. Agosto-Vega , 617 F......