☢ test - Í

Tolbert v. State, 321 Ga.App. 637, 742 S.E.2d 152 (April 25, 2013). Convictions for child molestation and related convictions affirmed; closure of courtroom during testimony of victims was authorized by OCGA § 17-8-54; that code section, however, doesn’t authorize closure during playing of victims’ recorded statements, but issue waived by counsel’s affirmative consent. Sandifer v. State, 318 Ga.App. 630, 734 S.E.2d 464 (November 19, 2012). Convictions for aggravated child molestation and related offefnses affirmed; no prejudice from potential violation of OCGA § 17-8-54, which provides “[i]n the trial of any criminal case, when any person under the age of 16 is testifying concerning any sex offense, the court 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, and court reporters.” Here, defendant’s sister was excluded when child victims testified. “While the exclusion of Sandifer's sister violated OCGA § 17–8–54, Sandifer has failed to show how this error harmed him. Although Sandifer argues that such prejudice resulted from the creation of ‘an environment more favorable to the child witnesses,’ he does not argue that this allegedly more favorable environment somehow bolstered the victims' credibility.” Substantial other evidence supported the convictions. “In light of this evidence, we cannot say that Sandifer was prejudiced by the fact that the trial court may have made it easier for the young victims to testify by removing all spectators, other than their immediate family members, from the courtroom.” Accord, Davis v. State , 323 Ga.App. 266, 746 S.E.2d 890 (July 16, 2013) (physical precedent only). Nicely v. State, 291 Ga. 788, 733 S.E.2d 715 (October 29, 2012). Murder conviction affirmed; no violation of right to public trial in excluding defendant’s father from courtroom pursuant to rule of sequestration. “Nicely does not point us to a single case in which the sequestration of a witness was held to violate the right to a public trial, and we have found none. To the contrary, we have found case upon case in which courts have held that the rule of sequestration ordinarily does not even implicate the right to public trial, much less infringe upon it. [Citing numerous cases from other jurisdictions.] At least in the circumstances of this case, we see no infringement of the constitutional right to a public trial by the exclusion of a single witness pursuant to a routine application of the rule of sequestration.” State v. Abernathy, 289 Ga. 603, 715 S.E.2d 48 (July 5, 2011). In murder prosecution, no public trial violation where some voir dire on sensitive subjects was conducted in a closed jury room, attended by judge, counsel on both sides, and defendant. “Abernathy's trial counsel not only acquiesced in but fully endorsed this procedure in furtherance of Abernathy's right to a fair trial … [A]s we have recently noted, the right to public trial ‘“may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests, such as the defendant's right to a fair trial. (Cit.)”... [Cit.]’ Purvis v. State , 288 Ga. 865, 869(1) (708 S.E.2d 283) (2011). Moreover, because Abernathy did not raise an objection to this procedure at trial, ‘the issue of closure [may only be] raised in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.’ Reid v. State , 286 Ga. 484, 487(3)(c) (690 S.E.2d 177) (2010). As with other ineffectiveness claims, Abernathy may prevail only if he can demonstrate prejudice. Id. at 488(3)(c) (‘where, as here, the issue of a courtroom closure is raised in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, prejudice will not be presumed’).[fn] Given that the procedure was designed with the express purpose of maximizing the odds of an impartial jury and thus a fair trial, Abernathy cannot make this showing.” Accord, Benson v. State , 294 Ga. 618, 754 S.E.2d 23 (January 21, 2014) (issue procedurally barred, limited to ineffective assistance claim where no objection to closure of courtroom during voir dire raised at trial). Clark v. State, 309 Ga.App. 749, 711 S.E.2d 339 (June 2, 2011). Convictions for aggravated child molestation and related offenses affirmed; no violation of right to public trial where courtroom cleared of spectators for testimony of child sexual abuse victims. “In this State, because ‘there is a compelling state interest in protecting children while they are testifying concerning a sex offense,’ Delgado v. State, 287 Ga.App. 273, 279 (651 S.E.2d 201) (2007), when a child under age 16 testifies concerning any sex offense, the court may clear the court ‘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, and court reporters.’ OCGA § 17–8–54. … Neither at trial nor on appeal, has Clark identified any specific people or category of people who he contends were wrongly excluded. Therefore, Clark has not shown that the trial court violated OCGA § 17–8–54 in any specific manner. And because ‘the partial closure permitted under [that] statute does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial,’ Delgado v. State, 287 Ga.App. at 279(2), citing Hunt v. State, 268 Ga.App. 568, 571(1) (602 S.E.2d 312) (2004), Clark has not shown that the trial court violated his constitutional rights.”