Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 17-8-54 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 17-8-54 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 17-8-54

TITLE 17 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Section 8. Trial, 17-8-1 through 17-8-76.

ARTICLE 3 CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS

17-8-54. Persons in courtroom when person under age of 16 testifies concerning sexual offense.

In the trial of any criminal case, when any person under the age of 16 is testifying concerning any sexual 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, victim assistance coordinators, victims' advocates, and such other victim assistance personnel as provided for by Code Section 15-18-14.2, jurors, newspaper reporters or broadcasters, and court reporters.

(Code 1981, §17-8-54, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1190, § 1; Ga. L. 2013, p. 891, § 1/HB 480.)

The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, in this Code section, substituted "sexual offense" for "sex offense" near the beginning, and inserted "victim assistance coordinators, victims' advocates, and such other victim assistance personnel as provided for by Code Section 15-18-14.2," near the end.

Editor's notes.

- Former Code Section 17-8-54, which related to writing out and reading of the charge to the jury, was redesignated as Code Section 17-8-56 by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1190, § 1.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Purpose of section.

- Court properly refused to clear courtroom of unnecessary persons when the defendant accused a courtroom observer of coaching the witness; the purpose of O.C.G.A. §§ 17-8-54 and17-8-55 is to protect the interest of the child witness and the record showed the witness' testimony was not influenced by any spectator. Martin v. State, 205 Ga. App. 591, 422 S.E.2d 876, cert. denied, 205 Ga. App. 900, 422 S.E.2d 876 (1992).

Allowing child victim's psychologist to remain in court not error.

- With regard to a defendant's trial and conviction on various child sexual abuse charges, the trial court did not violate O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54 as a result of clearing the courtroom of all spectators, with the exception of the victim's psychologist, who remained in the courtroom during the testimony, when the child testified, as there was no evidence in the record that the psychologist improperly influenced the testimony of the victim and, consequently, the defendant failed to assert a valid basis for reversal. Further, the purpose of § 17-8-54 is to protect the interest of the child witness, not the defendant; thus, a failure to follow the statute did not violate the defendant's rights. Driggers v. State, 295 Ga. App. 711, 673 S.E.2d 95 (2009).

Trial court did not err in allowing a victim's advocate to accompany the first victim to the witness stand and sit by the first victim in front of the jury while the first victim testified because the trial court carefully observed the advocate's presence and demeanor during the first victim's testimony and saw no inappropriate or prejudicial conduct or behavior. Ford v. State, 322 Ga. App. 31, 743 S.E.2d 442 (2013).

Prejudice not shown.

- Defendant failed to demonstrate how the clearing of two of defendant's relatives from the courtroom when "everybody was made to leave the courtroom who was not an officer" prejudiced the defendant's cause or resulted in a different outcome at trial. Turner v. State, 245 Ga. App. 294, 536 S.E.2d 814 (2000), overruled on other grounds, Miller v. State, 285 Ga. 285, 676 S.E.2d 173 (2009).

Defendant failed to show that the trial court violated the defendant's right to a public trial after the court cleared the courtroom of nonessential personnel when the youngest victim, who was four years old, testified because the defendant did not identify any specific people or category of people that were wrongly evicted. Clark v. State, 309 Ga. App. 749, 711 S.E.2d 339 (2011).

Failure to object.

- When the defendant was charged with, inter alia, child molestation, and the trial court, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54, excluded certain individuals from the courtroom when the victims testified, including members of the defendant's immediate family, the defendant waived the defendant's appellate argument that this was, in effect, a total closure of the courtroom because the defendant did not object when the defendant's family members were excluded. Hunt v. State, 268 Ga. App. 568, 602 S.E.2d 312 (2004).

Because the defendant failed to object to the exclusion of the defendant's parents from the courtroom, and the failure did not amount to plain error, the appeals court rejected the defendant's contentions on appeal that O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54 was violated as was the defendant's right to public trial; moreover, the appeals court declined to extend the plain error doctrine to the instant facts. Delgado v. State, 287 Ga. App. 273, 651 S.E.2d 201 (2007).

Defendant waived any challenge to the trial court's exclusion of the defendant's family during the victim's testimony by failing to object. Waiver aside, the challenge lacked merit, as the defendant could not show the alleged error harmed the defendant. Davis v. State, 323 Ga. App. 266, 746 S.E.2d 890 (2013).

Closed proceedings proper.

- Trial court did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by closing the child molestation proceedings for the child victim's testimony; O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54 permitted partial closure of the court room when a person under the age of 16 testified about a sex offense; the victim, age seven, was testifying about a sex offense, and § 17-8-54 did not violate the Sixth Amendment. Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1, 640 S.E.2d 599 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0623, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 338 (Ga. 2007).

Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by partially closing the courtroom during the victims' testimonies because the trial court limited the closure by allowing the defendant, the attorneys for the defense and the state, immediate families or guardians of the victims, immediate families or guardians of the defendant, the attorneys' employees, officers of the court, sheriff's deputies, and any members of the press to remain in the courtroom, which was acceptable pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Pate v. State, 315 Ga. App. 205, 726 S.E.2d 691 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1308, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 1027 (Ga. 2012).

Trial court properly cleared the courtroom while the two minor victims testified at the defendant's trial for child molestation as O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54 authorized the trial court to clear the courtroom and, to the extent the trial court improperly required persons excepted from § 17-8-54 to leave as well, the defendant waived appellate review by not objecting. Tolbert v. State, 321 Ga. App. 637, 742 S.E.2d 152 (2013).

Waiver of constitutionality argument.

- By failing to challenge the constitutionality of O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54 until after the child victim testified, the defendant waived the right to argue on appeal that the statute violated the defendant's constitutional right to a public trial. Craven v. State, 292 Ga. App. 592, 664 S.E.2d 921 (2008), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 935 (Ga. 2008).

Harmless error.

- Although the trial court violated O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54 in removing the defendant's immediate family from the courtroom while the victim testified, the error was harmless. Other evidence, including testimony by the victim's family members, a pediatrician, a child protective services worker, a nurse, and a psychotherapist, supported the conviction. Craven v. State, 292 Ga. App. 592, 664 S.E.2d 921 (2008), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 935 (Ga. 2008).

Cited in Donaldson v. State, 255 Ga. App. 451, 565 S.E.2d 486 (2002).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Determination of request for exclusion of public from state criminal trial in order to preserve safety, confidentiality, or well-being of witness who is not undercover police officer - issues of proof, consideration of alternatives, and scope of closure, 32 A.L.R.6th 171.

Basis for exclusion of public from state criminal trial in order to preserve safety, confidentiality, or well-being of witness who is not undercover police officer, 33 A.L.R.6th 1.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 17-8-54

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Reid v. State, 690 S.E.2d 177 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 64 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 8, 2010 | 286 Ga. 484, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 336

...22(3), 663 S.E.2d 772 (2008) relies on the non-controlling Purvis v. Crosby, 451 F.3d 734(III) (11th Cir.2006); Hunt v. State, 268 Ga.App. 568(6)(a), 602 S.E.2d 312 (2004) relies on Turner v. State, 245 Ga.App. 294(4)(e), 536 S.E.2d 814 (2000), which is a case involving the application of OCGA § 17-8-54 (providing for partial closure of the courtroom when a person under the age of 16 is testifying concerning a sex offense).
Copy

Scott v. State, 306 Ga. 507 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Aug 19, 2019

.... The petitioner claims that the trial court violated his right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI (a) of the Georgia Constitution5 when, as required by OCGA § 17-8-54, it closed the courtroom to certain spectators, including some members of his family, during the testimony of the minor victim....
...vision. 9 This is not the first time that we have denied a petition for certiorari raising an unpreserved claim that the trial court erred in closing a portion of a trial to certain persons under OCGA § 17-8-54. See, e.g., Chamberlain v....
...A15A0885 (October 10, 2015) (unpublished), cert. denied (Case No. S16C0375) January 19, 2016. It is not surprising that defendants fail to preserve such claims, because the Court of Appeals repeatedly has held that a “partial” courtroom closure under OCGA § 17-8-54 does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial even when the closure is ordered without any case-specific findings....
...11 rights “may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests,” such circumstances are “rare.” Id. at 45. The United States Supreme Court long ago made explicit in a case involving a statute similar to OCGA § 17-8-54 that the First Amendment demands a case-by-case determination of whether a courtroom may be closed....
...public during the testimony of minor sex-offense victims. But a mandatory rule, requiring no particularized determinations in individual cases, is unconstitutional. Id. at 611 n.27. Three years after Globe Newspaper, the Georgia General Assembly enacted OCGA § 17-8-54....
...of the court, victim assistance coordinators, victims’ advocates, and such other victim assistance personnel as provided for by Code Section 15-18-14.2, jurors, newspaper reporters or broadcasters, and court reporters. OCGA § 17-8-54 (emphasis added).7 None of the published Georgia Court of Appeals decisions 7 Unlike the statute at issue in Globe Newspaper, the General Assembly excluded “newspaper reporters or broadcasters” from the scope of the mandatory closure....
...But mere statutory permission for the press to be present seems less significant if, in fact, no member of the press was ever present in the first place. 14 affirming partial courtroom closures mandated by OCGA § 17-8-54, nor the unpublished opinion issued in this case, has cited Globe Newspaper, let alone grappled with its direction that a case-by-case analysis is required....
...ng the well-being of minor victims of sex crimes in concluding that total closure of courtroom without adequate findings by trial court violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights). Instead, the Georgia Court of Appeals has suggested that OCGA § 17-8-54 reflects “a legislative determination that there is a compelling state interest in protecting children while they are testifying concerning a sex offense,” and that this legislative determination obviates the need for the trial cou...
...of the case before excluding spectators pursuant to the statute. Hunt, 268 Ga. App. at 571 (1). Georgia courts may have overlooked Globe Newspaper in part because two years after that decision — and one year before passage 15 of OCGA § 17-8-54 — the Supreme Court outlined more specific guidelines for determining when a court proceeding may be closed. In that decision, which reversed a decision of this Court under the Sixth Amendment, the Court provided that where a courtroo...
...But Waller did nothing to undermine Globe Newspaper’s dictate that application of a mandatory closure rule without consideration of the particular circumstances presented by the case does not pass constitutional muster. Nonetheless, in concluding that OCGA § 17-8-54 obviates the need for the trial court to consider the particular facts of the case, the Georgia Court of Appeals has relied on federal circuit case law suggesting that a trial court’s obligations are more limited when it excludes only certain persons from a courtroom....
...involving constitutional challenges to Georgia statutes is vested in this Court, see Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II, the decisions of the Court of Appeals discussed here cannot properly be understood to have decided the constitutionality of OCGA § 17-8-54. Accordingly, when an issue of courtroom closure under OCGA § 17-8-54 has been properly raised, it may be prudent for a Georgia trial judge to consider whether an application of the Waller factors would allow closure as the statute requires....
Copy

Alexander v. State, 870 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2022 | 313 Ga. 521

...9 courtroom when a person under the age of 16 testifies in a criminal case concerning a sexual offense, although the statute permits certain individuals, including the defendant’s immediate family members, to remain in the courtroom. See OCGA § 17-8-54;5 see also Scott v. State, 306 Ga. 507, 513 (832 SE2d 426) (2019) (Peterson, J., concurring) (noting that OCGA § 17-8-54 imposes a mandatory closure rule and discussing concerns about the constitutionality of such a rule).6 Here, Alexander argues that his counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to the trial court’s partial closure of the courtroom. He argues that the partial closure deprived him of his public-trial right under the Sixth Amendment when the trial court 5 OCGA § 17-8-54 provides: In the trial of any criminal case, when any person under the age of 16 is testifying concerning any sexual offense, the court shall clear the courtroom of all persons except parties to the cause and...
...victims’ advocates, and such other victim assistance personnel as provided for by Code Section 15-18-14.2, jurors, newspaper reporters or broadcasters, and court reporters. 6 No issue regarding the constitutionality of OCGA § 17-8-54 is presented in this case. 10 failed to conduct any inquiry or make any findings pursuant to Presley regarding the interests to be advanced by the closure, whether the closure was broader than nece...
...the outcome of the trial would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U. S. at 694 (III) (B). Applying Strickland, this Court held in Reid that even when a 7 Alexander also argues that the partial closure of the courtroom violated OCGA § 17-8-54 and his right to a public trial under the Georgia Constitution. But Alexander makes no argument that a different test applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to object to a courtroom closure on those...