Stackhouse v. People
386 P.3d 440
Colo.2015Background
- Defendant James Robert Stackhouse was tried for sexual assault charges; the trial court excluded the public during jury selection because a large venire and small courtroom risked commingling and juror bias.
- The trial judge announced the closure and asked counsel if they had anything further; defense counsel did not object at trial.
- Stackhouse was convicted on two counts and acquitted on one; he appealed, arguing the closure violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
- The court of appeals held Stackhouse waived the public-trial claim by failing to object to a known closure, relying on Anderson v. People.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Anderson’s rule (no objection = waiver) remains controlling after U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Waller and Presley.
- The Colorado Supreme Court (majority) affirmed: Anderson remains good law in Colorado and Stackhouse waived the right by not objecting; Justice Márquez dissented advocating plain-error review under Olano.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to object to a known courtroom closure during voir dire constitutes waiver of the public-trial right | Stackhouse argued the closure violated Waller/Presley and that Anderson is no longer controlling; alternatively he argued forfeiture/plain error review should apply | The People (and majority) argued Anderson controls: a defendant who knows of a closure and does not object affirmatively waives the right; Waller/Presley address only contemporaneous objections | Held: Anderson remains controlling in Colorado; not objecting to a known closure constitutes waiver, so no automatic reversal under Waller/Presley without an objection |
| Whether Waller/Presley abrogate Anderson’s waiver rule | Stackhouse: Waller/Presley require automatic reversal for closure without Waller findings; thus Anderson is inconsistent | Majority: Waller and Presley apply only where a defendant objects; they do not speak to unobjected-to closures and therefore do not abrogate Anderson | Held: Waller/Presley do not abrogate Anderson; Colorado may enforce waiver by silence |
| Whether structural-error doctrine requires automatic reversal despite counsel’s silence | Stackhouse: structural error (public-trial violation) should permit plain-error review under Olano rather than treating silence as waiver | Majority: although public-trial violations are structural, waiver by counsel’s failure to object precludes reversal; allowing post-conviction attacks would encourage gamesmanship | Held: Colorado treats counsel’s failure to object to a known closure as affirmative waiver, avoiding automatic reversal |
| Whether unpreserved public-trial claims should be reviewed for plain error | Stackhouse (dissent): under Olano, failure to object is forfeiture subject to plain-error review; the closure here was obvious and unjustified | Majority: declining to apply Olano to displace Anderson’s rule; strategic reasons justify allowing counsel to waive by silence | Held: Majority rejects plain-error approach for unobjected-to known closures in favor of Anderson waiver rule; dissent would reverse on plain-error grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. People, 490 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1971) (defendant who knows of courtroom closure and does not object waives public-trial right)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (establishes four-factor test to close courtroom over defendant’s objection)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (public-trial right extends to jury selection)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (public-trial presumption: closure only for overriding interest, narrowly tailored, with findings)
- Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) (recognizes that basic rights are subject to waiver; cites failure to object as waiver of public-trial right)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture; unpreserved errors are reviewed for plain error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (discusses structural error class, noting denial of public trial can be structural error)