State v. Uhre, 922 N.W.2d 789

Victim E.B., age 4 at the time of the alleged incidents and 5 at trial, reported sexual abuse by her adopted uncle Waylon Uhre; forensic interviews showed anxiety and guardedness.
An SD card later found in the home contained child pornography images including of E.B. and photos of Uhre; the card was turned over to law enforcement.
Months after initial contacts, Special Agent Garland interviewed Uhre in February 2016 in a noncustodial setting; Uhre made inculpatory admissions and was indicted two days later on rape, multiple counts of sexual contact with a child, and numerous child pornography counts.
Pretrial, the State moved to partially close the courtroom during E.B.’s testimony under SDCL 23A-24-6; the circuit court granted a partial closure (excluding the general public but not parties, family, victim assistant, or media). Uhre objected as violating the Sixth Amendment public-trial right.
Uhre also moved to suppress his statement to Garland, arguing Edwards v. Arizona barred reinitiation of questioning because he had earlier sought counsel during a prior (noncustodial) phone call; the trial court initially suppressed but on reconsideration ruled Edwards inapplicable because the Garland interview was noncustodial.
Uhre testified at trial denying the allegations; a jury convicted him on all counts and the circuit court imposed lengthy aggregate sentences. Uhre appeals the partial closure and the denial of suppression; the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether partial courtroom closure during the minor’s testimony violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right	State: Closure under SDCL 23A-24-6 and Waller factors was necessary to protect the child’s welfare and was narrowly tailored	Uhre: Partial closure infringed his public-trial right; insufficient evidentiary basis and findings	Affirmed—partial closure proper; substantial interest in protecting a 5‑year‑old, closure narrowly tailored, alternatives considered, findings adequate
Whether Uhre’s February 2016 statement must be suppressed under Edwards v. Arizona because he earlier sought counsel	State: Garland’s interview was noncustodial so Edwards/Miranda do not apply; even if earlier counsel was requested, Edwards governs only custodial interrogations	Uhre: Earlier request for counsel during July phone call precludes reinitiation of questioning in Feb under Edwards	Affirmed—no suppression; Garland interview was noncustodial, Edwards inapplicable, no custodial interrogation shown

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (closure of courtroom requires showing of interest, narrow tailoring, consideration of alternatives, and findings)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596 (child’s age and psychological well‑being relevant to closure decisions)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police may not reinitiate custodial interrogation after request for counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires advisement and protections against self‑incrimination)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (Edwards rule can be limited by a break in custody)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (identifies structural errors including deprivation of public trial)