State v. Fageroos

relating Finally, to the condi- The state’s evidence man’s car. Freeman failed to have expert tion of car under- inspect Freeman’s have his own until his car more credibility of de- mined the Freeman’s alibi than seven months inspec- after the state’s however, again, of fense. Once both automotive tion. All these factors our conclu- experts concluded Freeman’s car could sion a new trial is not needed in the successfully round-trip justice. of have been driven interests Moreover, Lake to Duluth. White Bear Affirmed. great properly deal of admitted evidence overall, killing, linked Freeman rulings court’s

consider the trial on evidentia-

ry objections have been fair and even- Thus, if the court

handed. abused its discre- evidence, admitting jury

tion in would at a

not have arrived different verdict had admitted, any

the evidence not been error was harmless. Minnesota, Respondent, STATE v. III. FAGEROOS, Richard Russell requests grant also Freeman that we Jr., Petitioner, Appellant. justice. him a new trial the interests of prejudice Evеn when the defendant is not No. C1-93-2453. clear, court, occasion, this on limited has Supreme Court of Minnesota. trial in

awarded new the exercise of its supervisory jus “in powers interests 5,May Kaiser, tice.” See State 486 N.W.2d (Minn.1992) (conceding ‍​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‍argua that it was prejudiced by ble whether defense was prosеcutor’s potentially failure to disclose evidence, nevertheless,

exculpatory but trial,

awarding a “in the new interests

justice,” prosecutor’s when the failure to clear);

comply discovery rules was Schwantes,

State v. N.W.2d

(Minn.1982) (awarding “in a new trial justice” prosecutor’s

interests of because

negligent failure disclose information use deciding

ful to whether to waive privilege, though

marital even the evidence guilt strong).

of defendant’s

Although this has ordered a new trial justice the interests even when the

prosecutor’s comply failure to with the dis- inadvertent,

covery prophylactic rules was justice

reversals in interest of been have prose-

limited circumstances which the comply discovery

cution’s failure to See, Kaiser, e.g.,

rules is clear. State v. Schwantes, 387;

N.W.2d at State v. case, present In discovery

unclear that a violation has oc- addition, commendably

curred. the state

attempted preserve the condition of Free-

200 trial to 244 by the court months

sentenced appeal judgment of On from prisоn. direct alia, conviction, contended, defendant inter required was because the that a new trial court plainly court erred complain during the room sister, court and both minors. The ant her affirming all is appeals, while on other sues, court “find remanded for ings support the closure” of the trial. CO-92-1896, No. Fageroos, 1993 WL State 1993) (Minn.App. July (unpub (hereafter I). Af opinion) Fageroos lished remand, findings on the trial court made ter sought again relief claiming findings inade ‍​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‍ appeals, were ap The quate support closure. court of Fageroos, peals affirmed. State v. No. C1- 93-2453, May (Minn.Aрp. WL (hereafter 1994) (unpublished opinion) II). Fageroos appeals court of While the Fageroos remanding was correct just remanded not should have evidentiary hearing. for an but While appeal on fails record again the case should be remanded so believe opportunity the state have the to estab lish, can, necessary. if it If closure was the state cannot establish that closure was necessary, is then defendant entitled new morning one

Sometime around a.m. P.A.F., age and 12- June her Stuart, Defender, John M. State Public year-old asleep were in their sister bedroom Russett, Asst. State Defend- Steven P. Public family in the home when a man entered the er, Paul, for appellant. St. began sexually assaulting and bedroom III, Gen., Atty. Humphrey, H. Hubert kiss- P.A.F. The assaultive conduct included Gen., Cheryl Heilman, Atty. Asst. St. W. breasts, ing complainant, fondling and her Paul, Graham, Remington and John Crow penetrаting digitally vagina. her The man Brainerd, Atty., Wing County respon- complainant left com- threatened but after dent. might get plainant, who feared she hurt “re- bad,”

ally going get him she her told Complainant’s father. sister was awakened by and the intrusion witnessed the assault. girls their her woke mother told OPINION by marriage related dеfendant —who is COYNE, Justice. in their to their father —had been room defendant, by complainant’s “private parts.” This appeal is a criminal had touched Jr., immediately found Fageroos, Russell was con- The mother cheeked and Richard who jury burglary open kitchen wide to the outdoors. victed and criminal door conduct, morning her degree, both in the first and Later that the mother called sexual then, However, daughter’s question on the advice sure of trial. counselor whether counselor, called the sheriff. proper ultimately closure is a constitution issue, statutory al not a issue. Both United The trial court closed the courtroom to Const, States ConstAmend. VI and Minn. spectators during the of the two 6, provide § art. that all “[i]n criminal girls. Following is the entire trial record prosecutions enjoy the accused shall the relating to closure: * * * * * right public to a trial *.” prosecutor]: MR. SAUSEN Your [thе Honor, request at this time we would scrutiny Public of a criminal trial enhances all— quality safeguards the integrity the Green, going THE Mr. we’re to COURT: factfinding process, the with benefits to some have further which both the society defendant and to as a going to we’re have to ask that the four Moreover, publiс whole. access to the observers the back wait out the hall appearance criminal trial fosters an of fair- couple for us for the next of witnesses. ness, thereby heightening public respect (At point this the courtroom is cleared of judicial process. for the inAnd the brоad- spectators.) terms, public est access to criminal trials MR. [P.A.F.] SAUSEN: State calls permits public participate the to in and stand. upon judicial pro- serve as a check the MR. RUTTGER Your [defense counsel]: component cess—an essential in our struc- Honor, may approаch the Bench? self-government. ture of Certainly. THE COURT: Newspaper Superior Globe Co. v. Court (Off discussion.) the record 596, 606, 102 County Norfolk, the 457 U.S. short, In the record does not indicate wheth- 2620, (1982) (foot 2613, S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 248 complied require- er the trial court omitted). On every time a minor testifies. each and testimony taking complainant’s “[without case-by-case contrary, a determination the any concerning the witness’ condi evidence court, by a determi the trial must be made tion, interviewing the witness or and without of upon the consideration nation that is made * * order, justifying parents its her 607-08, 102 at Id. at S.Ct. several factors. notice that the the trial court took (the compelling nature of the inter 2620-21 years “Although old. Id. the victim was 15 psychologi physical the and protecting est in vague psychologi at prosecutor hinted some justify a well-being of minors does not cal possibly accompany problems cal that could rule, it is clear that mandatory closure “for testifying, it is not clear from the the witness’ particular ease circumstances of the the foreseen, specific problems were record what A trial significance of the ‍​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‍interest. affect the occurred, why they would have or whether case-by-case on a basis court can determine any way problems would in be amelio those necessary protect to the whether closure by closing at 1110. rated the courtroom.” Id. victim”) (footnote omit of a minor welfare contrary, On the the failed ted). by be considered the trial Factors to govern inquire intо factual basis for the the age, psycho include “the minor victim’s court the emotional ment’s assertion that witness’ maturity understanding, na logical the psychological condition warranted the victim, crime, of the ture of the the desires extraordinary precaution of closure and pаrents and relatives.” and the interests findings in of the order made no (footnote 608, at 102 at 2621 omitt Id. S.Ct. except age. take notice of Id. ed).2 Mirroring Davis is a recent case we decid (Minn. must articulate its ed, McRae,

The trial court State v. 494 N.W.2d 252 1992). findings specificity supporting and detail with of the issues McRae was One at for closure. See 467 U.S. closing the need erred in the whether the (where 48, at 2216 the Court held spectators during 104 S.Ct. courtroom to the 7-day suppression prose of a 15-year-old complainant. closure of the unjustified argued the State failed to be suffi that court where cutor there the justifying great ciеntly specific in its reasons clo room would assistance because be result, findings complainant the trial court’s the had made it known that she sure: “As a court, testify. general, purport was reluctant to The trial over were broad and and did not ruling very Although and emotional outburst 1. the test was artiсulated in Press-En- crude Amendment, terprise judge in the context of the First to order a continuance which caused stated, “[T]here Waller Court can be little jury pool could be drawn. so that a new Inas- right explicit doubt that the Sixth Amendment judge’s comments much as the record indicate proteсtive public the accused is no less of a the visible effect of the defendant’s outburst on implicit right First Amendment than it, prospective jurors who witnessed it is press public.” 467 at S.Ct. at U.S. possible judge’s that the event influenced the Since, however, the rec- decision about closure. complain- ord does not reveal whether either the 2. The record discloses that the trial was twice younger present ant or her sister were even at continued; continuance was occasioned the first performance, only the time of defendant’s can Following by judge. the illness of the trial denial it, they speculate and heard the minor that if saw continuance, request of his for a second have been intimidated it. witnesses gave with vent to his dissatisfaction counsel, establish, can, objection by nity ruled that clos- if defense he that closure was ing “appropriate necessаry. courtroom was these county attorney If the is unable circumstances, given so, the fact that she’s 15 to do then defendant is entitled to new years appear that did because, McRae, old and she trial. This is as we said hearing] an off-the-record to be [in Court right “[D]enial of the sixth amendment appear- extremely apprehensive about her subject trial is not to harmless error today.” “Although at ance here Id. McRae, impact analysis.” at appeared] that the trial court interviewed Fulminante, Arizona v. 499 U.S. complainant ordering the minor before clo- 1246, 113 (1991); 111 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 302 Wal during testimоny, her sure interview ler, 2217). 467 U.S. at at S.Ct. Moreover, was not recorded.” Id. at 259. Remanded to district court for an eviden- record not disclose evidence or “[t]he [did] tiary hearing respect necessity showing closure was neces- during closure of the minor sary protect the witness or insure fairness complainant and her minor sister. said, in the trial.” Id. We “On the record say before us we cannot that there has been TOMLJANOVICH, (dissenting). Justice compliance requirements set out respectfully I I dissent. would remand 45, 47, Georgia, [104 Waller U.S. this case for a new trial. McRae, S.Ct. at 494 N.W.2d at 2216].” 259; Schmit, see also v. 273 Minn. State appreciate I can that it will be embarrаss- (1966) (decided nearly 189 N.W.2d 800 20 ing and awkward for the victim and Waller, years before where held that the testify spectators present her sister to excluding everyone erred trial; however, at the that alone is not a attorneys except the trial of a criminal case deny sufficient on basis which press and members because of the crime). nature of the majority statutory has set forth the requirements

The difficult issue in this case is in and case law which must be determining appropriate remedy at specta- this met before a trial be closed to point. urges him majority Defendant us to аward tors. The also cites the trial record new trial. In McRae we said: clearly require- which indicates that those * ** ments were not met. it ‍​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‍Waller made clear that the rem- edy appropriate should be to the violation. February The trial To was held If a remand for on whether evidentiary hearing permit an at this late specific there was a basis for closure justify my opinion date to the closure is in remedy the violation of the trial inappropriate. adequate showing

without an of the need remedy then the initial is a remand, not a retrial. 467 U.S. at 2217).

49, 104 S.Ct. at outset, As we said at the whilе the court of Minnesota, Respondent, STATE appeals remanding Fage- was correct in just roos should have remanded not evidentiary hearing. BASHAW, Joseph Appellant. but for an We Mark speculate why county will not toas attor- No. C2-94-964. ney on the initial remand made no effort to Appеals Court of of Minnesota. record, supplement possible but it is wording he was influenced April remand, “findings.” ap- which was for It pears county the interim a new attor-

ney has that the taken office. We believe

county attorney given opportu- should be an notes (1994) § ments of Minn.Stat. 631.045 or the requirements of the decisions of the United However, right public the trial not Supreme relating and this court States Court right. right an absolute Id. to an “[T]he to nor whether the defendant either open may give way in certain cases to objected consented to or to closure. interests, rights other or such as the defen- § provides: Minnesota 631.045 Statute right govеrn- dant’s to a fair trial or the complaint At the trial of a or indictment inhibiting ment’s interest disclosure of for a violation of sections 609.341 to sensitive information. Such circumstances 609.346, 617.246, 2, or subdivision when a rare, however, will be and the balance of years age person minor under 18 is the special intеrests must be struck with care.” with, upon, against or whom the crime is 39, 45, Georgia, Waller v. U.S. S.Ct. committed, judge to have been the 2210, 2215, (1984); see, e.g., 81 L.Ed.2d 31 public from the exclude courtroom Superior Press-Enterprise Co. v. Court of during during victim’s or all 819, 501, California, 464 U.S. S.Ct. part upon or of the remainder of the (1984). Waller, L.Ed.2d 629 the United showing nеcessary pro- that closure is Supreme appro- States Court articulated the tect a or ensure fairness in the witness priate determining clo- standard whether judge give prosecutor, trial. shall justified. sure is public defendant and members of the opportunity object seeking to the closure before party to close the [T]he judge specify a closure order. The shall overriding an that is must advance interest closing the reasons for closure in an order likely prejudiced, the to be closure must be ‍​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‍part Upon all or closure necessary protect no than broader judge only persons shall admit who have a interest, the trial court must consider rea- direct interest the ease. proceed- sonable alternatives to ing, findings adequate it must make provides procedure for the The statute contemplating trial court to follow when clo the closure. hearing.”). the entire justify closure of at 2216 at 104 S.Ct. 467 U.S. specific in its Requiring the trial court to be 510, 104 Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at justification for closure avoids a blanket ex 824).1 at S.Ct. simply courtroom people clusion of from the “overriding inter recognized One a minor testifies. See Globe News because psycho physical safeguarding est” is Co., at 102 S.Ct. at 2621. paper 457 U.S. Newspa well-being of a minor. Globe logical appli illustrate the A number of decisions Co., at 2620. 102 S.Ct. per 457 U.S. Reyn principles. In Davis v. cation of these minor victims of sexu Although protection of (10th Cir.1989), olds, 1105, 1108 890 F.2d interest, compelling al offenses constitutes granted prosecutor’s motion to justify of the courtroom not closure does during a minor exclude the entire

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Fageroos

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: May 5, 1995

Citation: 531 N.W.2d 199

Docket Number: C1-93-2453

Court Abbreviation: Minn.