v. Lujan, 2020 CO 26

Abel Lujan was tried for murder; he conceded causing the death but disputed intent; jury convicted him of second-degree murder.
During trial the prosecution introduced prior-acts evidence under CRE 404(b); the court twice gave a limiting instruction about its limited purpose (motive, intent, common plan).
While the jury deliberated it asked for the limiting instruction in writing; over defense objection the court cleared the courtroom (judge, bailiff, court reporter remained), brought the jury in, and reread the prior limiting instruction aloud.
Defense objected at trial and raised a public-trial/right-to-be-present claim on appeal; the court reporter transcribed the in-chambers rereading.
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding the closure violated the Sixth Amendment; the People sought certiorari, urging adoption of a "triviality" standard.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, adopted the triviality standard, held the closure was trivial, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for consideration of Lujan’s remaining claims.

Issue	People’s Argument	Lujan’s Argument	Held
Whether Colorado should apply a "triviality" exception to public-trial closure claims	Adopt the Second Circuit’s triviality standard so wholly inconsequential closures do not automatically violate the public-trial right	Opposes excusing courtroom closures as "trivial" when they exclude the public and parties	Court adopts the triviality standard for Colorado (distinct from harmless-error review)
Whether the trial court’s clearing of the courtroom to reread a limiting instruction violated Lujan’s Sixth Amendment public-trial right	Closure was trivial: very brief, transcribed, repeated an instruction given twice in open court, involved no testimony or new evidence	Closure was deliberate, total (excluded defendant and counsel), and occurred at a critical stage; thus it undermined public-trial values	Applying the triviality test, the court held the closure was trivial and did not violate Lujan’s public-trial right

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (articulated four-factor test to justify courtroom closure)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (presumption of openness; closure requires overriding interest narrowly tailored)
Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1996) (articulated the "triviality" approach to some courtroom closures)
People v. Hassen, 351 P.3d 418 (Colo. 2015) (Colorado Supreme Court addressing closure facts and public-trial values)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (held deprivation of public-trial right is structural error)