68 So. 3d 383
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mansingh was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery after a jury trial.
- Mansingh argues the public was improperly excluded during voir dire, violating the public-trial right.
- The trial court removed spectators seated in the back when voir dire began, and Mansingh proposed allowing them to sit in the jury box.
- There is no record of the number or relation of the spectators, and the court refused Mansingh’s request.
- Mansingh did not articulate a legal ground for the objection, nor cite authorities linking closure to a public-trial right, preserving the issue for appeal.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding the objection insufficient to preserve the issue for review and that no reversible error occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire closure violated public-trial rights | Mansingh argues closure infringed public trial rights. | State contends no preserved error and no constitutional violation. | Issue not preserved; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Colbert, 968 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (preservation requires contemporaneous, grounds-based objection and matching appellate argument)
- Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2005) (grounds must be stated to preserve trial court error)
- Jones v. State, 883 So.2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (general objection without legal grounds is inadequate for appeal)
- Luda v. State, 860 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to cite exemptive authority fails to preserve issue)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (requires certain findings for closure under public-trial considerations)