796 N.W.2d 349
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Infante was convicted of second-degree assault in Minnesota based on threatening and weapon-use conduct toward D.I. after a night at a cabin.
- At trial, D.I. testified to gunshots, a head-to-head gun threat, and subsequent intimidating conduct including phone threats.
- During closing arguments, Infante’s sister and a young child were removed from the courtroom after the bailiff’s intervention.
- The district court gave a standard unanimous-verdict instruction but did not instruct on unanimity as to which act constituted the assault.
- Infante did not object to the jury instructions at trial, and the jury found him guilty as charged.
- The court remanded for an evidentiary Waller-based hearing to determine whether the closure violated the public-trial guarantee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public trial right violated by exclusion | Infante argues closure violated the public-trial guarantee. | State contends closure was justified or not prejudicial. | Violation found; remand for Waller-based evidentiary findings. |
| Unanimity instruction required for which act | Infante argues the jury must unanimously decide the specific act underlying the assault. | State contends multiple means within an element do not require unanimity if the element is proved. | No error in instructions; affirm as to unanimity issue; remand for Waller findings on closure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1984) (public-trial closure standards and four-factor test for partial closures)
- State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007) (applies Waller four-factor test to partial closures and demands record-based findings)
- State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2009) (remedy for closure without adequate findings; retrial not automatic)
- State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 2001) (related to public-trial closure; later clarified by Mahkuk)
- State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2002) (unanimity not required where multiple means establish same element)
- State v. Stempf, 627 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. App. 2001) (distinguishes cases with multiple acts within a single count)
- State v. Dalbec, 789 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. App. 2010) (single incident vs. multiple acts; informs unanimity analysis)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (means of proving an element may be non-unanimous if related element is unanimous)