363 P.3d 1259
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Gregory M. Hobbs shot and killed Ruben Archuleta Sr.; State prosecuted Hobbs for voluntary manslaughter with a firearm enhancement; the State declined to prosecute a separate killing as justified.
- A key defense witness, minor Britini S., feared retaliation and asked not to testify before an audience; after a chambers interview the parties stipulated to a partial courtroom closure (excluding family members) during her ~20-minute testimony.
- Defense counsel proposed the stipulation in open court with Hobbs present; the court accepted and made limited safety-related remarks but did not seal the courtroom.
- Hobbs was convicted by a jury; post-trial he moved for a new trial asserting juror bias, newly discovered evidence (a bullet-trajectory expert), and prejudice from the timing of a jury break.
- Hobbs also asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to retain/call a trajectory expert. The district court denied relief on all grounds; Hobbs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hobbs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partial courtroom closure during witness testimony — public‑trial right | Closure was justified by witness safety; parties stipulated and court limited scope/duration | Closure violated Sixth Amendment public‑trial right; structural error requiring automatic reversal | Waiver: Hobbs’s counsel expressly stipulated to closure; defendant waived public‑trial claim; no structural‑error relief granted |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to retain/call bullet‑trajectory expert | No prima facie ineffective assistance; any expert testimony would be speculative or cumulative given OMI testimony | Counsel’s failure to hire expert prejudiced defense and undermined self‑defense theory | Denied: defendant failed to show deficient performance and concrete prejudice; remedy is habeas if record insufficient |
| Motion for new trial — juror nondisclosure, newly discovered expert, and jury break timing | Juror disclosure and timing of break did not produce bias or fundamental unfairness; trajectory expert not newly discovered and would be cumulative/speculative | Juror knew a State witness and failed to disclose; expert discovery after trial warrants new trial; jury break timing suggested impropriety | Denied: no proof juror bias; expert testimony not newly discovered nor shown likely to change result; timing of break did not amount to fundamental error |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (closure must meet four‑prong "overriding interest" test)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501 (public‑trial presumption and standards for access)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public‑trial right exists for defendant's benefit and may be waived)
- Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (defendant may waive certain trial rights)
- Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (defendant's failure to request reopening or to object can forfeit public‑trial claim)
- Addai v. Schmalenberger, 776 F.3d 528 (8th Cir.) (defendant can consent to courtroom closure and cannot later claim Sixth Amendment violation)
- Crawford v. Minnesota, 498 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.) (distinguishing passive failure to object from express counsel consent to closure)