State v. Salazar
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Eddie A. Salazar was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for the death of his infant son; he received a life sentence and appealed after the trial court denied his motions for acquittal or a new trial.
- At trial the State admitted several recorded statements by Defendant (including a 9-1-1 call); autopsy evidence established blunt head trauma and skull fractures as cause of death.
- During jury selection the court seated a large venire (about 56–63 people) filling the courtroom, and excluded additional members of the public from voir dire due to lack of space; defense objected that this denied the right to a public trial.
- A prospective juror (Juror No. 1), an early-childhood teacher, expressed concerns about whether she could be fair given the child-victim nature of the case; defense moved to strike for cause and the court denied the motion after further questioning.
- Prosecutor twice made references suggesting Defendant had testified (once while questioning the pathologist and once in rebuttal); defense objected and requested a mistrial for the comments but the court gave a curative instruction stating a defendant has the right not to testify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Salazar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether seating the full venire and excluding others from voir dire violated the Sixth/Fourteenth public-trial right | Seating was a practical necessity; no evidence anyone was actually prevented from attending voir dire | Court effectively closed voir dire by filling the room and failing to consider alternatives, violating Presley/Waller requirements | Court: Trial court failed Presley procedural steps but defendant showed no actual exclusion — no offer of proof that any specific person was denied access — so no reversible error |
| 2) Whether the court abused discretion by refusing to strike Juror No. 1 for cause | Juror’s later unequivocal assurances and other answers showed she could follow law and presumption of innocence | Juror expressed uncertainty and said the details "could be a problem," so she was not rehabilitated and should have been struck | Court: No abuse of discretion; considering the entire voir dire the juror gave unequivocal assurances and could follow law |
| 3) Whether prosecutor’s references to Defendant "testifying" violated right not to self-incriminate and required a mistrial | Comments were direct references but inadvertent; instruction cured any prejudice | References impermissibly drew attention to Defendant’s failure to testify and were prejudicial, especially given multiple references | Court: References were inadvertent/isolated enough and Instruction No. 8 (no inference from not testifying) cured any prejudice; denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (Sixth Amendment right of public trial extends to voir dire; courts must consider alternatives before closure)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (established four-part test for closure of proceedings and stated prejudice is not required to obtain relief for public-trial violations)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (juror selection is a matter of public importance; public-trial principles apply)
- State v. Williams, 328 S.W.3d 366 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing public-trial claims; de novo review)
- State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. banc 1998) (trial court has broad discretion to determine juror qualifications; reversal only for clear abuse of discretion)
- State v. Kreutzer, 928 S.W.2d 854 (Mo. banc 1996) (venireperson qualifications judged on the entire examination)
- State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2012) (trial court best positioned to assess juror demeanor; jury presumed to follow instructions)