Bobby Joe Peyronel v. State
446 S.W.3d 151
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Peyronel was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a person under 14; a jury found him guilty and punished him with 50 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
- The complainant was three years old and attended Peyronel’s in-home daycare; the indictment alleged Peyronel unlawfully caused the child’s sex organ to contact Peyronel’s mouth.
- During the punishment phase, the court instructed witnesses and spectators to wait outside and ordered that “nobody” stay in the courtroom.
- The State sought to exclude Peyronel’s female family members to prevent juror intimidation; Peyronel opposed blanket exclusion as overly broad.
- The trial court closed the courtroom to all, prompting Peyronel to challenge the public-trial right as violated.
- The court ultimately modified the judgment to reflect conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a person under 14 and remanded for a new punishment hearing; costs totaling $704 were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the punishment-phase closure violated Peyronel’s public-trial rights | Peyronel argued exclusion of his family denied a public trial | State claimed closure was to protect juror integrity | Public-trial right violated; closure improper and broader than necessary |
| Whether the judgment misstates the charged offense | Peyronel contends the judgment wrongly notes under-six offense | State concedes error in the judgment | Judgment reformed to reflect conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a person under 14 |
| Whether the evidence supports the assessed court costs of $704 | Costs allegedly unsupported and not properly presented | Statutory costs properly mandated; evidence sufficient | Costs supported; judgment affirmed as to costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (test for closure of courtroom during trial)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (requireful consideration of alternatives before closure; guidance on narrow closures)
- Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reminds that all reasonable alternatives must be considered before closure)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (public-trial standards and preservation of error)
- Andrade v. State, 246 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (partial closure considerations in public-trial analysis)