State v. Davis-Heinze, 982 N.W.2d 1

Background

Wendy Davis-Heinze pointed a gun at her then brother-in-law, chased him in her vehicle as he fled on a tractor, and rammed his tractor; she was charged with reckless endangerment (extreme indifference to human life).
During jury deliberations the jury asked to replay an audio recording and asked whether Davis-Heinze made a statement the night of the incident.
The judge told counsel to approach and then stepped outside the courtroom to discuss how to respond; that off-the-record conversation was not transcribed.
The judge then returned, summarized and answered the jury’s question on the record, and sent the jury back to deliberate.
Davis-Heinze appealed, arguing the off-the-record conference violated her Sixth Amendment public-trial right and that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed: it held the brief off-record conference was not a Sixth Amendment closure and the evidence was sufficient to convict.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the off‑record conference constituted a Sixth Amendment closure	The brief off‑record sidebar was not a closure; the judge summarized the discussion on the record and answered the jury; no prejudice shown	The off‑record discussion closed part of the trial to the public without Waller findings or waiver, violating the public‑trial right	Not a closure in violation of the Sixth Amendment; affirmed (reviewed for obvious error because defendant didn’t object)
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict of reckless endangerment (extreme indifference)	Sufficient evidence: victim testimony that defendant pointed a gun, officer testimony and recovered firearm, recordings and photos supported a reasonable inference of danger	Gun may have been inoperable/bent so there was no substantial risk of serious bodily injury	Evidence was sufficient; pointing a firearm creates a presumption of potential harm; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (establishes public‑trial/waller analysis for courtroom closures)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (public and press have rights of access separate from a defendant’s fair‑trial rights)
United States v. Norris, 780 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1986) (public trial fosters credibility and public confidence in proceedings)
State v. Pendleton, 978 N.W.2d 641 (N.D. 2022) (off‑the‑record conferences may avoid a violation only if judge summarizes on the record and parties can supplement/ object)
State v. Morales, 932 N.W.2d 106 (N.D. 2019) (remedy for improper courtroom closure is a new trial)
State v. Martinez, 956 N.W.2d 772 (N.D. 2021) (bench conferences traditionally in chambers usually are not closures; closures must be rare)
State v. Pulkrabek, 975 N.W.2d 572 (N.D. 2022) (structural‑error doctrine and distinction between waiver and forfeiture)
State v. Walbert, 956 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 2021) (de novo review of whether facts rise to constitutional violation)
State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2016) (brief sidebars/bench conferences addressing routine matters typically do not implicate the public‑trial right if record is promptly made available)
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Kammeyer, 341 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 1983) (public access considerations for bench conferences)
State v. Meier, 422 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1988) (pointing a firearm at another supports reckless‑endangerment conviction even if actor claims the gun was unloaded)
State v. Dahl, 776 N.W.2d 37 (N.D. 2009) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)