State v. Walbert, 956 N.W.2d 384

Russell Walbert was tried on four counts of gross sexual imposition; jury trial held November 19, 2019, resulting in convictions and a prison sentence.
Before the victim’s testimony the State asked the court to prevent people from entering or exiting the courtroom while she testified to avoid interruptions; Walbert agreed.
The district court issued a verbal order: spectators present at the start of testimony could remain, others could not enter once testimony began; the court said it was not closing the courtroom.
No written order was entered, the court did not perform a Waller analysis, and the record does not show whether or when doors were locked or anyone was denied entry.
Walbert appealed, arguing the restriction amounted to a courtroom closure without Waller findings and thus a structural Sixth Amendment/public-trial violation requiring automatic reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s restriction on ingress/egress during the victim’s testimony constituted a "closure" implicating the public-trial right	The restriction was not a closure but a reasonable time/place/manner limitation to prevent disruptions	The restriction was a closure excluding the public and therefore required Waller findings	The restriction was not a closure; it was a permissible managerial limitation on access
Whether the court’s failure to perform the Waller analysis was structural error requiring reversal	No Waller analysis was required because there was no closure; no structural error	Failure to apply Waller to a closure is a structural error entitling defendant to automatic reversal	No Waller required where no closure occurred; absence of Waller findings did not create structural error; judgment affirmed

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (sets four-factor test for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (articulates public-trial access principles)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (public access promotes fairness in criminal proceedings)
State v. Morales, 932 N.W.2d 106 (N.D. 2019) (public-trial violations are structural errors)
United States v. Lampley, 127 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1997) (trial judge may impose reasonable seating/timing rules)
Bell v. Evatt, 72 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 1995) (courtroom order measures to prevent disruption do not necessarily constitute closure)
Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 1993) (temporary locking that permits access to those already present is not a closure)
McCrae v. State, 908 So.2d 1095 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (controlling ingress/egress is a reasonable restriction on public access)
People v. Woodward, 841 P.2d 954 (Cal. 1992) (recognizes broad trial-court authority to manage courtroom)
State v. Rogers, 919 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 2018) (addresses structural-error principles in North Dakota)