☢ test - Í

or give it to others. [Cits.]’ … Powell does not confer upon Morrison the constitutional right to distribute obscene material.” Mauk v. State, 242 Ga.App. 191, 529 S.E.2d 197 (February 2, 2000). Conviction for sodomy and false imprisonment affirmed; distinguishing Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E.2d 18 (1998), defendant’s act of sodomy here, even if not forced (which evidence strongly shows) was not constitutionally protected because “the conduct for which Mauk was convicted took place outdoors in a wooded area adjacent to a public road. The conduct could easily be seen from the road. In fact, the incident came to light when a passerby, who had just dropped his wife off at work, went by in his truck and observed Mauk and the victim struggling. This was not a private place within the contemplation of Powell . A private place is a place ‘“where one is entitled reasonably to expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.”’ Quintrell v. State, 231 Ga.App. 268, 269-270(1), 499 S.E.2d 117 (1998) (full concurrence as to holding cited).” Gagnon v. State, 240 Ga.App. 754, 525 S.E.2d 127 (November 10, 1999). Defendant’s conviction for sodomy, affirmed; act here, in a public, commercial, setting, was not protected by Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327, 328(2), 510 S.E.2d 18 (1998) (right to privacy protects “private, unforced, non-commercial acts of sexual intimacy between persons legally able to consent”). “First, the lingerie shop was a public place. See, e.g., Rushing v. State, 133 Ga.App. 434, 435(1), 211 S.E.2d 389 (1974) (massage parlor a public place). The session room was subject to observation through a viewing hole in the door intended to be used by employees. So it is likely that the ‘conduct involved may be reasonably expected to be viewed by people other than members of the actor's family or household.’ OCGA § 16-1-3(15). Second, although Gagnon maintains that the sexual acts were consensual, if the victim consented she did so only in exchange for money. The conviction of Gagnon of sodomy for a sex act in a public, commercial place is not prohibited by Powell. ” U. PUBLIC TRIAL Seminal case: Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984), discussed in Presley (January 19, 2010) and Hunt (July 16, 2004), below. Freeman v. State, 328 Ga.App. 756, 760 S.E.2d 708 (July 16, 2014). Convictions for burglary and attempted murder affirmed; “no basis for reversal” in “trial court's closure of the courtroom during a portion of the sentencing hearing. During the sentencing phase, Freeman's counsel proffered that, as part of his mitigation defense, he would elicit testimony from an investigator that Freeman would offer substantial cooperation with ongoing criminal investigations. The State did not want to impede open investigations by revealing information about those investigations, so the State requested that the trial court exclude the public during those witnesses' testimony. Freeman's counsel did not object because he believed it would benefit his client to facilitate the law enforcement testimony showing his client's cooperation.” Having consented to the procedure, Freeman can’t now complain, but in any event, “it is clear that the trial court held a hearing on the record in which it considered the least intrusive way to protect Freeman's interests in presenting mitigation evidence without hindering the State's ongoing criminal investigation. See Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 214, 130 S.Ct. 721, 175 L.Ed.2d 675 (2010). The trial court carefully considered alternatives to closure as well as ways to limit closure to only certain witnesses' testimony. See id. The court made explicit findings on the record and identified the overriding nature of Freeman's due process interest and the State's interest in protecting sensitive information involved in the criminal investigation. See id. The parties proffered specific facts supporting the trial court's findings and exercise of discretion. Under these circumstances, and in light of Freeman's waiver, we discern no basis for reversal.” Miller, joined by Phipps and Ellington, dissents, noting that no sensitive information was elicited during the closed session. Johnson v. State, 293 Ga. 641, 748 S.E.2d 896 (September 23, 2013). Felony murder conviction affirmed; no public trial violation where part of jury voir dire was conducted in chambers, in presence of defendant and counsel. “[A]lthough the right to a public trial extends to voir dire, it ‘“may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests, such as the defendant's right to a fair trial or the government's interest in inhibiting the disclosure of sensitive information.” [Cit.]’ Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213 (130 SCt 721, 175 LE2d 675) (2010). Thus, public access to voir dire can be limited, as was done here, to promote juror candor and minimize the risk of juror taint. State v. Abernathy, 289 Ga. 603, 609(5) (715 S.E.2d 48) (2011).” Accord, Muse v. State , 293 Ga. 647, 748 S.E.2d 904 (September 23, 2013). Davis v. State, 323 Ga.App. 266, 746 S.E.2d 890 (July 16, 2013). Physical precedent only on this point. Aggravated sexual battery and related convictions affirmed (but remanded for resentencing); defendant waived any error in exclusion of his family from courtroom during victim’s testimony where “counsel affirmatively agreed to the closure.” In any event, no prejudice shown, citing Sandifer (November 19, 2012), below.