State v. Frederick, 989 N.W.2d 504

On March 9, 2021, R.B. was stabbed during an altercation with Demoris Frederick; Frederick was charged with aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.
A jury convicted Frederick of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon and acquitted him of conspiracy.
Frederick appealed, arguing his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated by several off-the-record bench conferences and that voir dire was not recorded.
The record showed multiple bench conferences and at least one comment that “the door is closed,” but the proceedings were conducted in open court and the public was not shown to have been asked to leave.
Frederick did not contemporaneously object to failures to preserve bench-conference substance on the record, nor did he attempt to reconstruct the missing record under N.D.R.App.P. 10(f).
The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed for obvious error where issues were not preserved and affirmed the criminal judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pre-trial bench conference just before voir dire — public-trial violation?	No closure; conference occurred in open court and in view of the public	Conference was off-record/private, excluding public and violating right to public trial	No violation; record shows open-court discussion and Frederick failed to prove public exclusion
Post-selection exchange (comment “the door is closed”) before opening statements — public-trial violation?	No closure; matters were discussed in open court and gallery seating was available	Comment evidenced exclusion of the public and closed proceeding	No violation; Frederick did not show the public was excluded
Off-the-record sidebar during cross-examination — failure to preserve record; obvious error?	Any recording failure was not prejudicial; Frederick did not attempt record reconstruction	Failure to record bench conference denied public-trial protections and prejudiced defense	Court erred in not recording or summarizing, but error was not shown to affect substantial rights; no obvious error established
Voir dire not recorded (felony case) — per se reversible error?	Failure to record voir dire violates administrative standard but is not per se reversible; no objection was made	Unrecorded voir dire mandates automatic reversal	Not reversible per se; Frederick failed to preserve issue and did not show prejudice, so no relief

State v. Martinez, 956 N.W.2d 772 (N.D. 2021) (framework for public-trial inquiry and closure analysis)
State v. Pendleton, 978 N.W.2d 641 (N.D. 2022) (bench-conference guidance; administrative exchanges ordinarily not closures)
State v. Pulkrabek, 975 N.W.2d 572 (N.D. 2022) (public-trial violations are structural errors)
State v. Entzi, 615 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 2000) (failure to record voir dire does not alone entitle defendant to new trial)
State v. Davis-Heinze, 982 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 2022) (examples where public was excluded and public-trial right implicated)
City of Grand Forks v. Dohman, 552 N.W.2d 66 (N.D. 1996) (appellant bears burden to bring up entire record on alleged errors)
United States v. Cashwell, 950 F.2d 699 (11th Cir. 1992) (mere technical omissions in record do not automatically require reversal)