§ 631.045

State v. Fageroos · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. McRae · 1992 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Bashire · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Austin Daily Herald v. Mork · 1993 1 citation

Unlike the Massachusetts statute reviewed in Globe, which mandated closure of all criminal trials involving juvenile victims of sex offenses, the Minnesota statute contemplates individualized review as a prerequisite to an order restricting access. See Minn. Stat. § 631.045 (court may exclude public). In this case, the trial court made specific findings that the juvenile victims would suffer embarrassment and fright and would be traumatized further if required to testify “before a public forum.” See State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 82, 139 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1966) (temporary exclusion of the public from criminal trials permissible if juveniles would be unable to testify competently and coherently because of fright or embarrassment). The trial court properly focused on “the incremental injury” that would be caused by testifying in public, as distinguished from the effect of confronting the defendant and the trauma inherent in testifying about personal matters. See Globe, 457 U.S. at 607 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. at 2620 n. 19 (incremental injury is proper measure of governmental interest). Neither the defendant in the criminal trial nor the media representatives have challenged those findings. Compare McRae, 494 N.W.2d at 258 (defendant objected to closure and challenged sufficiency of evidence to support findings).