Peyronel v. State
No. PD-1274-14
Case Summary written by Ben Agee, Staff Member.
JUDGE HERVEY delivered the opinion of the Court in which PRESIDING JUDGE KELLER, JUDGES MEYERS, KEASLER, RICHARDSON, YEARY, and NEWELL joined. JUDGE ALCALA concurred.
Facts: Appellant Bobby Joe Peyronel was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen. During a break in the punishment phase of the proceedings, a woman who was deemed to be part of the defense approached one of the jurors and asked, “How does it feel to convict an innocent man?”
As a result of this, the court excused all witnesses from the courtroom. The state further asked that the court ask “female members of the defendant’s family” to leave the courtroom during the punishment phase. The defendant’s counsel asserted that such a suggestion by the state was too broad, and would “create the impression in the jury’s mind that [the defendant] has absolutely no support whatsoever.” The state responded by saying that the defendant’s “support” had intimidated a juror, and therefore the female members of the defendant’s family should be released.
Ultimately, the court decided to exclude all members of the gallery from the remainder of the punishment proceedings.
Mr. Peyronel appealed, saying he preserved a complaint that his public-trial right was violated, to which the state argued that a right to a public trial is subject to forfeiture. After the appellate court agreed with the appellant, the state appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Issue: Whether a person’s right to a public trial can be forfeited in certain circumstances.
Analysis: The Court began by stating that all rights other than the “most fundamental” can be forfeited “if not insisted upon by the party to whom they belong.” The court went on to discuss its research and subsequent finding that no jurisdictions in the country would require a public trial in spite of the wishes of the parties involved. In addition to the forfeitable nature of a public trial, the court discussed how, though the appellant had expressed his displeasure with the trial court’s actions, he had never expressly asserted that his constitutional right to a public trial was violated.
Holding: Because the court could not find any reasons a right to public trial could not be forfeited, and because the appellant had never concretely expressed his thoughts that his right to a public trial had been violated, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reversed the appellate court, and otherwise affirmed the trial court.
JUDGE JOHNSON, dissenting.
In dissent, Judge Johnson said that the record clearly pointed to the fact that, by preserving a complaint, the appellant had effectively, if not expressly, stated that his right to a public trial had been violated. When the appellant’s counsel stated that excluding all female members of appellant’s family was “too broad,” the counsel effectively objected to any exclusion over the bare minimum of removing the one disruptive female who had initially accosted a juror.
Because the appellant had sufficiently objected to the exclusion of the entire gallery, the dissent argued that the judgment of the court of appeals should have been affirmed.