Peyronel, Bobby Joe, PD-1274-14

Bobby Joe Peyronel was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child; punishment assessed at 50 years and $10,000; appeal followed.
After the guilty verdict, someone in the courtroom told a juror, “how does it feel to convict an innocent man?” prompting the judge to invoke the rule and exclude witnesses from the courtroom.
The State asked that all female supporters of Peyronel be excluded so jurors would not feel intimidated; the trial court ordered all of Peyronel’s witnesses and gallery members to leave for the remainder of the proceedings.
Defense counsel objected to the exclusion as overbroad, arguing it would create the impression the defendant had no support.
The First Court of Appeals (unanimous, published) held Peyronel’s objection preserved error and that the total courtroom closure violated his public-trial right; it reversed and remanded for a new punishment hearing.
The primary legal question presented on discretionary review was whether Peyronel’s objection sufficiently preserved his claim that the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Peyronel preserved appellate review of a claimed denial of the public-trial right when counsel objected to exclusion of supporters	Peyronel: objection clearly alerted court/opposing counsel to the constitutional complaint; objection was timely and explained the harm (jury perception; loss of support)	State: objection focused on visible family support, not the public’s observation of proceedings; did not use specific constitutional language	Court of Appeals: preserved — counsel sufficiently indicated what he wanted and why at a time court could act
Whether total exclusion of defendant’s supporters without Waller-factor findings violated the public-trial right	Peyronel: a total closure required on-the-record consideration of Waller factors; failure to do so mandates reversal	State: closure justified by juror intimidation concerns after the comment to a juror	Court of Appeals: held the trial court failed to apply Waller factors and improperly ordered total closure; remanded for new punishment hearing

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (sets four-factor test for permissible courtroom closures)
Peyronel v. State, 446 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (Court of Appeals: objection preserved error and total closure violated public-trial right)
Addy v. State, 849 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (presence of friends supports public-trial protection; exclusion can chill defense and affect jury perception)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (error preservation does not require magic words)
Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (no formalistic language required to preserve error)
Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (clarifies sufficiency of objections to preserve complaints)
Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (error preservation requires clear indication to judge and opposing counsel)