State of Iowa v. Ronald James Brimmer
983 N.W.2d 247
Iowa2022Background
- Ronald Brimmer was charged with second-degree sexual abuse for participating in a 2018 sexual assault of a 16-year-old (J.H.) with co-defendant Augustin Bon‑Orduno; Brimmer was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate 25‑year term.
- Trial was delayed repeatedly by COVID‑19 and ultimately occurred April 6, 2021 in Dubuque County. The district court physically distanced jurors in the gallery and excluded all public spectators (including Brimmer’s mother); no livestream or audio feed was provided.
- The district court considered but declined to run a livestream itself and declined Brimmer’s request to postpone trial; it allowed a victim advocate to attend but refused the defendant’s mother.
- On appeal Brimmer raised two principal issues: (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support the statutory enhancement to second‑degree sexual abuse via aiding/abetting, and (2) whether the total closure of the courtroom to the public violated his Sixth Amendment/Iowa Constitution public‑trial right.
- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the sufficiency ruling but held the courtroom closure violated Brimmer’s public‑trial right because it was not narrowly tailored and the court unreasonably rejected reasonable alternatives (notably livestreaming); the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brimmer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aiding/abetting (second‑degree enhancement) | Circumstantial evidence (Snapchat threesome invite, kitchen conversation, Bon‑Orduno’s prior assault and distracting conduct) permitted a rational juror to infer Bon‑Orduno knew and encouraged Brimmer’s assault. | Evidence showed two independent assaults; Brimmer’s presence and proximity alone do not prove aiding/abetting. | Affirmed: Evidence was substantial to support aider/abettor mens rea and conduct; conviction for second‑degree sexual abuse stands. |
| Closure of courtroom to public during COVID (public‑trial right) | COVID‑19 is an overriding interest; district court reasonably excluded public for safety and juror comfort; court lacked capability to livestream without State assistance. | Total exclusion (even of defendant’s mother) violated the constitutional right to a public trial; court failed to adopt narrowly tailored measures or reasonable alternatives (e.g., limited in‑person seating, livestream). | Reversed: Complete closure was broader than necessary and court unreasonably rejected alternatives (livestream); exclusion of public was structural error requiring new trial. |
| Preservation/alternative‑availability (livestream) | State suggested Brimmer may have abandoned certain objections and did not press livestream in district court. | Brimmer repeatedly objected to exclusion and preserved the public‑trial claim; whether he expressly demanded livestreaming is immaterial because the court must consider alternatives sua sponte. | Majority: Error was preserved; court should have considered/implemented reasonable alternatives (livestream). (A dissent would have found failure to preserve/waiver on livestream claim.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four‑part test for courtroom closure: overriding interest, narrow tailoring, reasonable alternatives, adequate findings)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (closure permitted only when essential to protect higher values and narrowly tailored)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public trial means open to all who care to observe; historical purpose of openness)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (defendant at least entitled to friends, relatives, and counsel present)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (trial courts must consider alternatives to closure sua sponte and take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (public‑trial violations are structural errors not subject to harmless‑error analysis)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (even in a pandemic, constitutional protections remain in force)
- State v. Lawrence, 167 N.W.2d 912 (Iowa 1969) (Iowa recognition of right to public trial)
- State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2013) (aider/abettor liability requires assent or encouragement prior to or during the crime)
- State v. Finnigan, 478 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 1991) (statute elevating sexual abuse when aided/abetted often involves co‑participant conduct analogous to gang‑rape)
- United States v. Allen, 34 F.4th 789 (9th Cir. 2022) (courts must consider less‑restrictive alternatives during COVID; livestreaming and limited spectators were reasonable options)