851 N.W.2d 897
S.D.2014Background
- Rolfe was convicted of three counts of first-degree rape of a minor and twelve counts of possessing, manufacturing, or distributing child pornography.
- The trial court, on the State's SDCL 23A-24-6 request, closed the courtroom to the general public during the testimony of the child victim A.F.
- On appeal, Rolfe I held the closure violated due process because the trial court failed to address Waller factors and to make explicit findings, remanding for supplemental findings.
- On remand, the court held a supplemental hearing, made extensive findings, and concluded the closure was partial, justified by the victim’s welfare and other factors, with the media allowed in and the rest of the public excluded.
- Rolfe challenged (a) the remand remedy as an abuse of discretion and (b) the adequacy of justification for the partial closure; the Supreme Court affirmed the remand remedy and sustained the partial closure.
- The court treated the remand as a precise, limited remand and found the closure, under a substantial-reason standard for partial closures, consistent with Waller, Globe Newspaper Co., and Farmer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand remedy appropriateness | Rolfe: new trial was only remedy; remand allowed after Rolfe I' | State: remand to supplement Waller findings was proper; new trial improper | Remand was appropriate; no abuse in denying new trial |
| Justification for partial courtroom closure | Rolfe: closure not properly justified | Rolfe: partial closure justified by substantial reasons and findings | Partial closure justified; findings adequate under Waller and related standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes factors for courtroom closures)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (public access and closure standards for juvenile testimony)
- United States v. Farmer, 32 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 1994) (framework for closures and ancillary protections)
- United States v. Thompson, 713 F.3d 388 (8th Cir. 2013) (partial closure considerations in appellate context)
- State v. Garcia, 561 N.W.2d 599 (N.D. 1997) (partial-closure analysis in state court context)
- United States v. Petters, 663 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2011) (partial-closure standard and rationale)
- United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1992) (contemplated alternatives and closure reasoning)
- Nieto v. Sullivan, 879 F.2d 743 (10th Cir. 1989) (closure justification considerations)
- Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir. 1984) (confrontation and access considerations)
- Woods v. Kuhlmann, 977 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1992) (broad vs. narrow closure standards)
- Rolfe I, 2013 S.D. 2, 825 N.W.2d 901 (S.D. 2013) (trial closure must be supported by Waller, Globe, and Farmer standards)
- State v. Piper, 2014 S.D. 2, 842 N.W.2d 338 (S.D. 2014) (remand scope and directives guidance)