State v. Walbert
Decision Date | 24 March 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 20200197,20200197 |
Citation | 956 N.W.2d 384 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Russell WALBERT, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Julie A. Lawyer, Burleigh County State's Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Russell Walbert appeals from an amended criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Walbert argues the district court created a structural error by denying his right to a public trial. We affirm.
[¶2] Walbert was charged with four counts of gross sexual imposition on July 3, 2019. Walbert waived his right to a preliminary hearing and the case proceeded to a jury trial on November 19, 2019.
[¶3] On November 19, 2019, a conference was held before trial began. At the conference, the State moved to stop people from entering and exiting the courtroom while the victim testified during trial. The State made clear it was Walbert agreed to the State's request. The district court made a verbal order:
The court did not enter a written order and did not analyze its decision under the four-factor Waller test. See Waller v. Georgia , 467 U.S. 39, 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984) ( ). No record exists showing if, when, or for how long the doors were locked during and after the victim's testimony, nor was a record made of whether anyone was stopped from entering the courtroom during her testimony.
[¶4] The jury found Walbert guilty of four counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(2)(a), and was sentenced to prison. Walbert appeals from the amended criminal judgment.
[¶5] Walbert argues the district court created a structural error by denying his constitutional right to a public trial. He claims the court was required to engage in a Waller analysis before closing the courtroom, and the court's failure to do so requires reversal. The State argues the activity the court engaged in during the victim's testimony did not constitute a closure and Walbert's rights were neither affected nor denied.
[¶6] Whether the facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Morales , 2019 ND 206, ¶ 14, 932 N.W.2d 106.
[¶7] Among other things, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a public criminal trial. See also N.D. Const. art. I, § 12 (). A criminal defendant's public trial right is shared with the public to assure fairness, among other principles. See In re Oliver , 333 U.S. 257, 270, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948) ; Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. , 478 U.S. 1, 7, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986). "Violation of the right to a public trial is a structural error." Morales , 2019 ND 206, ¶ 15, 932 N.W.2d 106. Structural errors are constitutional errors "so intrinsically harmful as to require automatic reversal." See, e.g., Morales , at ¶ 15 ; State v. Rogers , 2018 ND 244, ¶ 3, 919 N.W.2d 193 ; State v. Rende , 2018 ND 56, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 361 ; State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378 ; State v. White Bird , 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642.
[¶8] The threshold question in determining whether a defendant's public trial right was implicated is whether the proceeding was closed. See State v. Martinez , 2021 ND 42, ¶ 3, 956 N.W.2d 772. If so, we determine whether the trial court made appropriate Waller findings to justify the closure. Id. If not, a Waller determination is unnecessary because the defendant's public trial right was not implicated.
[¶9] It is well established that judges possess broad power to control their courtrooms, minimize disruptive behavior, and maintain security. See, e.g., United States v. Lampley , 127 F.3d 1231, 1239 (10th Cir. 1997) (); Bell v. Evatt , 72 F.3d 421, 433 (4th Cir. 1995) ( ); Herring v. Meachum , 11 F.3d 374, 379-80 (2d Cir. 1993) ; People v. Esquibel , 166 Cal.App.4th 539, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803, 814 (2008) ( ); McCrae v. State , 908 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) ; State v. Caldwell , 803 N.W.2d 373, 390 (Minn. 2011) (); State v. Ware , 498 N.W.2d 454, 458 (Minn. 1993) (); State v. Stark , 183 Wash.App. 893, 334 P.3d 1196, 1201 (2014) ().
[¶10] Here, the State moved to bar people from entering and exiting the courtroom during the victim's testimony. The State made clear it was not asking that courtroom be closed, and instead only requested that people who were in the courtroom during the victim's testimony remain in the courtroom, and those who were not present at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Davis-Heinze
..."Whether the facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation is reviewed de novo on appeal." State v. Walbert , 2021 ND 49, ¶ 6, 956 N.W.2d 384. "[T]he Sixth Amendment public trial right attaches from the beginning of adversarial proceedings through sentencing." State v. Martinez , 20......
-
State v. Davis-Heinze
..."Whether the facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation is reviewed de novo on appeal." State v. Walbert, 2021 ND 49, ¶ 6, 956 N.W.2d 384. "[T]he Sixth Amendment public right attaches from the beginning of adversarial proceedings through sentencing." State v. Martinez, 2021 ND 42......