Bobby Joe Peyronel v. State, 01-13-00198-CR

Appellant (Bobby Joe Peyronel) was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to a $10,000 fine and 50 years' imprisonment; the issue arose during the punishment phase.
During a break, an unidentified woman described as "part of the defense" approached a juror and asked, "How does it feel to convict an innocent man?" prompting a bench conference outside the jury's presence.
The trial court, on its own motion and at the State's request, excused witnesses and excluded the gallery; defense objected that excluding the wife and daughter would create the impression the defendant had no support.
On appeal the court of appeals held the defendant preserved a public-trial claim and ordered a new punishment hearing; the State sought review arguing the claim was not preserved.
The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide whether the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is subject to forfeiture and whether Peyronel preserved his complaint.
The Court held the public-trial right is forfeitable and that Peyronel failed to preserve his complaint because his in-court objection did not sufficiently place the trial court on notice to address a public-trial violation.

Issue	Peyronel's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is subject to forfeiture	The right cannot be forfeited and was violated by excluding the gallery	The public-trial right is subject to forfeiture; preservation rules apply	The right may be forfeited through inaction; not mandatory
Whether Peyronel preserved his public-trial claim for appellate review	His objection to blanket exclusion preserved the public-trial complaint	He failed to timely and specifically alert the trial court to a public-trial violation	Not preserved—objection lacked sufficient specificity to put court on notice
Whether a trial court must hold a Waller hearing when closure is challenged	Implicitly argued closure required scrutiny and hearing	Trial court could have held a Waller hearing if alerted	Court noted a Waller hearing would be the proper procedure but was not requested here
Whether "magic words" are required to preserve a public-trial claim	No; exact words not necessary if grounds are clear	Preservation requires stating grounds with sufficient specificity	"Magic words" not required, but grounds must be clear enough for the judge to act

Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (framework: mandatory rights, waivable rights, forfeitable rights)
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1960) (public-trial complaints can be forfeited by inaction)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (procedures required before excluding the public from courtroom)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (public-trial right vindicated where defendant objected at trial)
Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (preservation requires informing trial judge what is sought and why)
Janecka v. State, 739 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (definition of waiver: intentional relinquishment of a known right)
Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (U.S. 1991) (cites Levine on forfeiture principle)