Cameron, Vanessa
PD-1427-13
| Tex. App. | Feb 20, 2015Background
- Appellant Cameron challenged the trial court’s handling of courtroom access, arguing the public was barred from voir dire and proceedings.
- The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial; this Court granted review and affirmed, with dissents.
- During proceedings, the court allegedly sought to accommodate spectators but the record does not clearly show whether any spectators entered the courtroom.
- The defense asserted the courtroom was closed to the public, while the trial court indicated it was open and attempted to accommodate family members.
- Rule 33.1 requires an objection, a ruling, or a clear lack of ruling to preserve error; the defense did not obtain a ruling to preserve this issue.
- The State contends the burden was on the appealing party to create a record showing closure; the court emphasizes burden on the appealing party to prove error and adequate record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the courtroom effectively closed to the public? | Cameron contends the courtroom was closed to spectators. | The State maintains Cameron failed to prove closure and the record shows attempts to accommodate spectators. | Record insufficient to prove closure; burden on appellant to prove error. |
| Did Cameron preserve error under Rule 33.1? | Rule 33.1 required objection and ruling; the court refused to rule was not properly preserved. | State argues the defense did not timely object to lack of ruling and thus failed to preserve. | Cameron failed to preserve the issue by not obtaining a ruling; error not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (burden on defense to show courtroom closure and adequate record)
- Davis v. State, 345 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (burden and standards for preservation of error on appeal)
- Green v. State, 912 S.W.2d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (principles governing preservation and burden on appealing party)
- Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (Rule 33.1 and preservation standards)
- Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (court’s handling of courtroom access and record considerations)
- Poole v. State, 974 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998) (preservation and burden in appellate review)
- Mattei v. State, 455 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.Crim.App. 1970) (burden-shifting concerns in evidentiary and procedural rulings)