Kory Nelson Turner v. State, 413 S.W.3d 442

Turner was convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison for the shooting of Leonard E. Keith at a party; the trial court excluded Turner’s family from voir dire to make room in the gallery, which Turner contends violated the public-trial right.
Castello testified Keith had a history of violence toward the victim’s ex-partner; Castillo offered testimony about Keith’s past violence against her years earlier; the defense sought to admit Keith’s reputation for peacefulness via a friend’s testimony.
Dave Castello testified Keith had not been violent in the past; the defense sought to rebut this with Castillo’s testimony on Keith’s past violence, which the court limited under Rule 403.
During trial, Turner requested a jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide; the court denied the request.
The Court of Appeals held Turner preserved his public-trial issue, reversed and remanded for a new trial, and addressed the remaining evidentiary rulings and jury instruction issues as potentially reappearing on remand.
The disposition of the public-trial issue drove the reversal and remand; other rulings on evidence were discussed but not outcome-determinative for the remand order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the public-trial right violated by excluding Turner’s family from voir dire?	Turner preserved error; exclusion violated public-trial principles.	Court space concerns allowed exclusion; no prejudice shown.	Reversed; new trial awarded.
Were Castillo’s testimony about Keith’s past violence and Keith’s character for violence admissible?	Castillo’s testimony admissible under Rule 404(a)(2) and as rebuttal to Dave.	Remoteness and Rule 403 outweighed probative value.	Overruled as error; not necessary for the remand outcome.
Did the trial court abuse by excluding Turner’s evidence of peaceful character?	Peaceful character relevant in a murder case; admissible under Rule 404(a)(1) and 405.	Evidence not properly probative or overly prejudicial under 403.	Sustained; error—reversal not limited to this point due to first point.
Was the trial court required to instruct on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense?	There was some evidentiary basis for a lesser-included offense.	No sufficient evidence to support lesser-included instruction.	Denied; court declined to give lesser offense instruction.

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (closure must be justified by an overriding interest and findings must support the closure)
Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. 2010) (public-trial protections apply to voir dire and require careful attention to alternatives)
Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial-closure safeguards require particularized findings and reasonable alternatives)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (objections must be specific enough to preserve error for appeal)
Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for preserving error and addressing trial objections)
Clarke v. State, 270 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (prosecutor’s misstatement or exculpatory material in PSI can be grounds for appeal if essentially the same claim)
Miller v. State, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (remoteness of acts affects admissibility of prior-acts to impeach)
Moore v. State, 143 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (limits on cross-examination to prevent confusion and irrelevance)