State v. Decker

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rogers

    2018 N.D. 244 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 15 times
    In Rogers, at ¶ 19, we stated, "In contrast, public trial violations during pretrial hearings have been held to require only a new, public hearing, not automatic reversal."

    Id. ; State v. Rende , 2018 ND 56, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 361. "We apply a de novo standard of review to a claim of a constitutional violation." State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 6, 907 N.W.2d 378 (quoting State v. Aguero , 2010 ND 210, ¶ 16, 791 N.W.2d 1 ). [¶ 4] A structural error is a "defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself."

  2. State v. Morales

    2019 N.D. 206 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 26 times
    In Morales we held the absence of Waller findings when a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial has been implicated constitutes obvious error.

    We have said that structural errors are constitutional errors "so intrinsically harmful as to require automatic reversal" regardless of whether they were forfeited or waived. Id. at ¶ 3 (reversing and remanding for new pretrial competency hearing); State v. Pittenger , 2019 ND 22, ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 439 ; State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378 ; State v. Watkins , 2017 ND 165, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 442 ; State v. White Bird , 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642. A

  3. State v. Martinez

    2021 N.D. 42 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 15 times
    In Martinez, 2021 ND 42, ¶ 5, we stated, "structural errors require automatic reversal regardless of whether they were forfeited or waived, including when the error is invited."

    This Court has repeatedly said structural errors require automatic reversal regardless of whether they were forfeited or waived, including when the error is invited. Morales , at ¶ 15 ; Rogers , at ¶ 3 ; State v. Rende , 2018 ND 56, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 361 ; State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378 ; Watkins , 2017 ND 165, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 442 ; seeState v. White Bird , 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642. These cases did not squarely present the question of whether or under what conditions a structural error may be waived.

  4. People v. Lujan

    461 P.3d 494 (Colo. 2020)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that "even if a trial court fails to make the necessary findings under Waller , the Sixth Amendment is not necessarily violated ‘every time the public is excluded from the courtroom’ " (quoting Peterson , 85 F.3d at 40 )

    ¶21 Although we did not opine on the propriety of the triviality standard in Hassen , we note that it has gained acceptance since the Second Circuit first adopted it over two decades ago. See, e.g. , Perry , 479 F.3d at 890–91 (exclusion of defendant’s eight-year-old son from entire trial was trivial); United States v. Ivester , 316 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 2003) (exclusion of "spectators during the brief mid-trial questioning of the jurors" was trivial); Braun , 227 F.3d at 919 (exclusion of member of jury venire not selected to serve as a juror from entire trial was trivial); People v. Bui , 183 Cal.App.4th 675, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585, 593, 595 (2010) (exclusion of three individuals during voir dire for roughly forty minutes was trivial); Northcutt , 358 P.3d at 185 (presiding judge making an inquiry to a deliberating jury without counsel or defendant present to ask whether it would render a verdict that day was trivial); State v. Decker , 907 N.W.2d 378, 385 (N.D. 2018) (exclusion of lawyer unconnected with the case during voir dire was trivial). But see United States v. Agosto-Vega , 617 F.3d 541, 544–54, 548 (1st Cir. 2010) (declining to adopt the triviality standard where the trial court excluded a defendant’s family members during jury selection); Smith v. Smith , No. 17-673 (JRT/TNL), 2018 WL 3696601, at *8 (D. Minn. Aug. 3, 2018) (questioning "whether the triviality exception conforms with the Sixth Amendment").

  5. State v. Linner

    2023 N.D. 57 (N.D. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    State v. Decker, 2018 ND 43, ¶ 9, 907 N.W.2d 378. See also Martinez, at ¶ 33 ("the Sixth Amendment public trial right extends to jury selection").

  6. State v. Pulkrabek

    2022 N.D. 157 (N.D. 2022)

    [¶10] Pulkrabek correctly points out that structural errors are intrinsically harmful and render a trial fundamentally unfair. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 (1991); see also State v. Decker, 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378. However, he cites no case supporting the proposition he could not waive his rights under the Detainers Act without counsel, or even if he could not, that such a violation constituted a structural error.

  7. State v. Pulkrabek

    2022 N.D. 128 (N.D. 2022)   Cited 9 times

    This Court has repeatedly said structural errors require automatic reversal regardless of whether they were forfeited or waived, including when the error is invited. Morales, at ¶ 15; Rogers, at ¶ 3; State v. Rende, 2018 ND 56, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 361; State v. Decker, 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378; Watkins, 2017 ND 165, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 442; see State v. White Bird, 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642.

  8. State v. Walbert

    2021 N.D. 49 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Morales , 2019 ND 206, ¶ 15, 932 N.W.2d 106. Structural errors are constitutional errors "so intrinsically harmful as to require automatic reversal." See, e.g.,Morales , at ¶ 15 ; State v. Rogers , 2018 ND 244, ¶ 3, 919 N.W.2d 193 ; State v. Rende , 2018 ND 56, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 361 ; State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378 ; State v. White Bird , 2015 ND 41, ¶ 24, 858 N.W.2d 642. [¶8] The threshold question in determining whether a defendant's public trial right was implicated is whether the proceeding was closed.

  9. State v. James

    2020 N.D. 136 (N.D. 2020)   1 Legal Analyses

    The deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error. State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378. We review an alleged denial of a defendant's right to counsel de novo.

  10. State v. Pittenger

    2019 N.D. 22 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    [¶4] Denial of the right to a public trial without proper analysis is a structural error requiring automatic reversal. See State v. Rogers , 2018 ND 244, ¶¶ 3, 6, 919 N.W.2d 193 ; State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 378. Four constitutionally mandated factors must be considered before closing a courtroom to the public:"1.