Steadman v. State

• Decision Date: 07 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. PD–1356–10.,PD–1356–10.
• Citation: 360 S.W.3d 499
• Parties: Jeffrey Dee STEADMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

360 S.W.3d 499

Jeffrey Dee STEADMAN, Appellant,

v.The STATE of Texas.

No. PD–1356–10.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 2012.

Larry D. Roberton, Abilene, for Appellant.

Patricia K. Dyer, Asst. D.A., Abilene, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, for State.

PRICE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., and WOMACK, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, COCHRAN, and ALCALA, JJ., joined.

In a single jury trial, the appellant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child.The jury assessed punishment at three life sentences for the aggravated assault convictions, two twenty-year sentences for the indecency convictions, and a $10,000 fine for each conviction.The trial court determined that the sentences should run concurrently.On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in excluding four members of his family from the courtroom during jury selection, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.In a published opinion, the Eleventh Court of Appeals disagreed, affirming the appellant's convictions.¹We granted the appellant's petition for discretionary review to examine that holding in light of the recent opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Presley v. Georgia.²We will reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

The appellant came to trial on March 24, 2008.Just before the jury panel was brought into the courtroom, the following colloquy unfolded:

THE COURT: We are back on the record in 8299–D, State of Texas versus Jeffrey Steadman.The Court is going to bring up a jury panel here in a moment.There are 48 of them.I have 48 seats in the gallery area.The defense counsel has asked that I allow certain family members to be present in the courtroom either standing or with chairs pulled up.[Defense Counsel], I'm assuming you are talking about around the wall.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.I can't imagine it being a problem as far as any decorum or anything.We have plenty of room for these people.We have 12 juror chairs in the jury panel and we have plenty of room.We have just four people: his mother, his stepfather, his present wife ...

THE COURT: The Court is not going to allow folks to be sitting in the jury box during this period of time and I don't believe we have enough room.And [Defense Counsel] wanted the Court to put this of record, the Court's refusal of the Defendant's request to have these four persons either standing or sitting in the courtroom during the jury selection process.

[Defense Counsel], as I indicated, they are certainly welcome to come in unless they are subject to the Rule, if it's imposed, once the jury is seated.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we would ask that we be able to make a bill later on to have photographs of the place here, the courtroom, and I would expect ...

THE COURT: At the time you request to make a bill, [Defense Counsel], I will take that up at that point.If you want to photograph whatever you want to in the courtroom, you are welcome to do so.The Court's ruling is—I will not prejudge what you may do in the future.We will wait until you make a bill.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And we would object that it violates our constitutional right to an open and fair jury under the U.S. constitution and the stateconstitution.

THE COURT: Anything else?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We would just like the record to reflect that in the opinion of counsel there is plenty of room and it would not be disruptive in any way to have the jurors here—our witnesses here.

THE COURT: I understand you have made that argument once now.Is there anything—any new argument you want to make, [Defense Counsel]?If not, then the Court's ruling stands.

We will be in recess.

Half an hour later, when court re-convened, the appellant immediately registered a further objection, in the presence, but out of the hearing, of the jury panel:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would object to the district attorney's investigator sitting where I had requested that my people that are family members be able to sit, the DA's investigator sitting with the jury.We would object to it based upon the Sixth Amendment of the constitution of the United States and the Texas state constitution entitling us to an open and fair trial.

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

At this point, the trial court began to address the jury panel.The trial judge made no further explanation on the record why the appellant's family members would not be allowed in the courtroom during voir dire.Early in the jury-selection process, the district attorney's investigator arrived and was introduced to the jury panel.The reporter's record does not reflect how long she might have stayed or where she may have sat in the courtroom.

After he was convicted, the appellant filed a motion for new trial.Among other things, he reiterated his argument that the trial court erred in excluding members of his family from the courtroom during voir dire.He attached ten photographs of the courtroom as appendices to his motion, along with an affidavit from counsel attesting to their accuracy.The trial court entered a written order denying the motion for new trial, expressly finding that no hearing was necessary to dispose of the matters raised therein.

The appellant raised the issue again on direct appeal, attaching the photographs of the courtroom from his motion for new trial to his brief, which was filed on December 11, 2008.On February 4, 2009, the State filed a motion in the court of appeals requesting that court to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for additional findings of fact with respect to this issue.Noting the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Waller v. Georgia,³the State argued that the express findings of fact that a trial court must make in order to justify closing its courtroom to the public had not been made, but through no fault of the State.The trial court had excluded the appellant's family members sua sponte, and had deferred any fact finding until such time as the appellant should make a bill of exception, but, because the appellant never pursued such a bill, the State maintained, no findings were made.On February 9, 2009, the court of appeals granted the State's motion and remanded the cause for additional fact findings, without, however, requiring an additional hearing.

Accordingly, in early March of 2009, the trial court entered detailed written findings.After first determining (erroneously) that the courtroom contained sixty seats, and that the panel for the appellant's trial contained sixty potential venire members, the trial court went on to find:

3.The space on each side of the gallery area is narrow.Persons standing or sitting in that area would be in close proximity to one or more of the persons on the panel.

4.The case on trial was one which was expected to be “emotionally-charged”.

5.The Court believed that having one or more of the Defendant's family members sitting in close proximity to the panel members would make such panel members uncomfortable and reticent to fully express their feelings, attitudes and possible prejudices.

6.There was space adequate for the Defendant's family members to sit or stand in the area behind “the bar,” and in front of the bench.

7.The space behind the bar end in front of the bench is reserved for parties, their attorneys, the attorney's support staff and court personnel.

8.Allowing persons other than the parties, their attorneys, the attorney's staff and court personnel in this space creates security concerns.

9.Security concerns are heightened in this case.

10.Placing chairs for family members to sit in the area in front of the bench would interfere with access by the Court bailiff and other security personnel to the Defendant.

11.There was space adequate for the Defendant's family to sit or stand in the jury box.

12.The jury box is reserved for the selected jury members during a jury trial.

13.A member of the prosecution's team (an investigator) sat in the jury box during part of the voir dire.No one objected to the investigator sitting in the jury box.

14.The jury box is an area raised above the level of the gallery area.

15.Family members seated in the jury box would be moved when the selected jury was seated.The area to which they could move would be the area in front of the bench, once again creating security concerns.

16.There are no other courtrooms in the Taylor County Courthouse larger than the 350th District Court courtroom.

17.The central jury room on the first floor of the Taylor County Courthouse is a significantly larger space than the 350th District Court courtroom.

18.Moving the voir dire proceedings to the central jury room area after the sixty person panel had been seated could cause delay.

19.The central jury room is not configured as a courtroom.It's [sic] use as a venue for voir dire is inconvenient.

20.The central jury room is less secure than the 350th District Court.In March, 2008, the Taylor County Courthouse did not use a metal detector or otherwise restrict the public's open access to the first floor.

21.The Court did not seek to close the voir dire process but only to control the courtroom arrangement for security and decorum purposes.

A few weeks later the trial court supplemented these findings with additional findings, first to correct its initial erroneous statement with respect to the number of members on the jury panel and the number of seats in the courtroom, and then to add the following:

3.The Defendant's attorney objected to the Defendant's family members not being able to sit in the area where the District Attorney's investigator was sitting.The investigator was either sitting in the area on the side of the gallery or in the jury box.

All of these findings were made without the benefit of an additional hearing; but the appellant failed to request such a...