Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

585 So. 2d 1189

Docket No. 90-02863.

Thornton v. State

Fred THORNTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 20, 1991.

This page is marked noindex.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1991-09-20

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2002

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“shall clear the courtroom of all persons except parties to the cause and their immediate families or guardians, attorneys and their secretaries, officers of the court, jurors, newspaper reporters or broadcasters, court reporters, and, at the request of the victim, victim or witness advocates designated by the state attorney’s office.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Roberts v. State

Relies on Waller v. Georgia · 570 So. 2d 1301 - Florida Bar Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-Chapter 6 (Legal Specialization & Education Programs) · 344 So. 2d 244 - Wheeler v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-09-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1190 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tonja R. Vickers, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michele Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The appellant, Fred Thornton, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after a jury found him guilty of committing an attempted lewd or lascivious act in the presence of a child. We reverse.

¶5During the trial, the trial court, without any party requesting it, cleared the courtroom of all spectators while the minor victim testified. The appellant objected on the ground that clearing the courtroom would deny him the right to a public trial.

¶6Section 918.16, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that in a trial when any person under the age of sixteen is testifying concerning any sex offense, the court shall clear the courtroom of all persons except several enumerated individuals. This court in Pritchett v. State,566 So.2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed,570 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 1990), held that before a trial court orders closure it must satisfy the four prerequisites enunciated in Waller v. Georgia,467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). First, the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; second, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; third, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceedings, and fourth, the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller.

¶7The trial court in this case failed to apply the Waller prerequisites and apparently did not adhere to section 918.16 when it cleared the courtroom of even those individuals authorized under the statute to be present. This was error and requires reversal for a new trial. Pritchett; see Wheeler v. State,344 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1977). We reverse the judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.

¶8Reversed and remanded.

¶9SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

/585/so2d/1189 · .json · Public domain