State v. Linner, 988 N.W.2d 586

Background

Victim alleged sexual abuse by Jonathan Linner beginning at age seven and continuing until the mother discovered them in bed; initial 2018 investigation produced a terrorizing plea, and in 2020 the victim disclosed years of sexual abuse.
State charged Linner with continuous sexual abuse of a child (class AA felony); jury convicted at an August 2021 trial.
At trial the parties stipulated to a confidential juror questionnaire and limited, in-chambers individual voir dire; the court obtained Linner's on-the-record waiver of the public-trial right as to those questions.
Linner did not object at trial to follow-up voir dire questions or to several State voir dire statements; individual voir dire was transcribed.
At sentencing the court imposed life without parole and a no-contact order including Linner's minor children; appeal challenged (1) closure for limited voir dire, (2) State's voir dire conduct, and (3) authority to order no contact with minor children.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Linner)	Held
Whether limited closure for individual voir dire and use of confidential questionnaire violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right	Parties stipulated to questionnaire and in-chambers questioning; court made Waller findings and obtained defendant's knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver	Closure was structural error because questionnaire exceeded court's Waller findings and the court did not follow its closure order	Waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary as to the stipulated questions and individual questioning; transcript preserved public-trial values; no Sixth Amendment violation
Whether State's voir dire prejudiced defendant or denied due process	Statements were harmless in context; burden of proof and presumption of innocence were correctly stated elsewhere and in instructions which jurors are presumed to follow	State undermined presumption of innocence, misstated burden, and improperly humanized the victim to jurors	Read in context, statements were not improper or, if arguably improper, did not affect substantial rights or the verdict; no plain/obvious error requiring reversal
Whether court had authority to order no contact with defendant's minor children as part of sentence	Statute authorizes prohibition on contacting the victim during imprisonment and "victim" definition and constitutional victim-rights provisions are broad enough to include family members of a minor victim	Court lacked authority (relying on precedent limiting no-contact orders absent explicit statute) and thus exceeded sentencing authority	Statute enacted after Wilder permits no-contact with victims during imprisonment; "victim" definition and constitutional provisions support including family members; no-contact order was authorized and supported by record

Key Cases Cited

State v. Martinez, 956 N.W.2d 772 (N.D. 2021) (public-trial structural-error standards and waiver principles)
State v. Decker, 907 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2018) (voir dire falls within Sixth Amendment public-trial right)
State v. Morales, 932 N.W.2d 106 (N.D. 2019) (availability of transcript can satisfy public-trial values)
State v. Pulkrabek, 975 N.W.2d 572 (N.D. 2022) (transcript of closed proceedings preserves public-access values)
State v. Patterson, 855 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 2014) (obvious-error standard for unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims)
State v. Wilder, 909 N.W.2d 684 (N.D. 2018) (sentencing court cannot order no contact as part of executed sentence absent statutory authority)
State v. Corman, 765 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2009) (scope of appellate review of criminal sentences)