State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                         This opinion will be unpublished and
    may not be cited except as provided by
    Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    IN COURT OF APPEALS
    A14-1239
    State of Minnesota,
    Respondent,
    vs.
    Cynthia Ann Maxwell,
    Appellant.
    Filed June 8, 2015
    Affirmed
    Ross, Judge
    Hennepin County District Court
    File No. 27-CR-11-39117
    Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
    Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County
    Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
    Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant
    Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
    Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
    Ross, Judge.
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    ROSS, Judge
    Cynthia Maxwell’s boyfriend suffered second- and third-degree burns because she
    threw hot chicken grease in his face. During Maxwell’s first-degree assault trial, the
    district court excluded her acquaintances from the courtroom after they repeatedly
    asserted weakness in the state’s case in front of jurors during breaks. On appeal after her
    conviction, Maxwell maintains that the district court violated her constitutional right to a
    public trial. Because Maxwell’s right to a public trial does not diminish the district
    court’s authority to jettison apparent jury manipulators, we affirm the conviction.
    FACTS
    Minneapolis police responded to an emergency call in December 2011 that
    someone had just thrown hot grease in a man’s face. Officers approached the home and
    encountered Jeffrey Given, who was in excruciating pain and whose skin was red and
    blistering. An ambulance took Given to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with third-
    degree burns on his face and chest and second-degree burns on his eyes. He told the
    officers that Cynthia Maxwell, his girlfriend of 12 years, threw hot grease in his face. A
    witness told the officers that she too saw Maxwell douse Given’s face with chicken
    grease that had been heating on the stove.
    The state charged Maxwell with first-degree assault. On the third day of
    Maxwell’s March 2014 trial, the district court judge made a record of evicting Maxwell’s
    friends and family from the courtroom:
    During the break the deputy brought to my attention that
    defendant’s friends or family were talking out in the hallway
    in the presence of jurors about the case and about the lack of
    evidence, et cetera. They had been warned already once in the
    courtroom or at least once by the same deputy and were told
    they would be kicked out if they continued. The deputy
    brought that to my attention.
    2
    So number 1, we’ve kicked them out of the building.
    But number 2, I’m going to instruct the jury just to disregard
    anything they might have said. Nobody knows what they said.
    But obviously it’s not evidence. Anybody want to say
    anything else?
    Maxwell’s attorney did not object to the removal. When the jury returned, the judge
    advised jurors to disregard anything they heard the commenters say about the case:
    It was brought to my attention by the deputy that some people
    who were in this courtroom might have been talking out in
    the hallway and might have said things that maybe you --
    some of you maybe overheard. Just want to remind you that
    nothing anybody says that’s not on the witness stand is
    evidence and should not be considered by you for any
    purpose. So I don’t know what was said, if you heard it or
    not, but to the extent you heard anything, just disregard it
    completely.
    The jury found Maxwell guilty. The district court sentenced her to 134 months in prison.
    Maxwell appeals.
    DECISION
    Maxwell argues that the district court violated her constitutional right to a public
    trial by excluding her friends and family from the courtroom. The argument has no merit.
    A criminal defendant’s right to a public trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to
    the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution.
    “The requirement of a public trial is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may
    see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned.” Waller v. Georgia, 
    467 U.S. 39
    ,
    46, 
    104 S. Ct. 2210
    , 2215 (1984) (quotation omitted). Whether the district court violated
    Maxwell’s right to a public trial raises a constitutional question, which this court reviews
    de novo. State v. Brown, 
    815 N.W.2d 609
    , 616 (Minn. 2012).
    3
    Not every courtroom exclusion implicates the accused’s right to a public trial. 
    Id. We know,
    for example, that a district court judge’s courtroom exclusion does not
    implicate the defendant’s right to a public trial when the judge did not clear the
    courtroom of all spectators, the trial remained generally open to the public and press,
    members of the public were present during every period of the trial, and the judge
    excluded no one improperly. See 
    id. at 617–18;
    see also State v. Silvernail, 
    831 N.W.2d 594
    , 601 (Minn. 2013). This standard informs us that the district court did not interfere
    with Maxwell’s right to a public trial. The district court did not clear the entire
    courtroom, the trial remained generally open, and the record suggests that some member
    of the public attended each trial segment (and Maxwell does not claim otherwise). These
    circumstances are not disputed. Our only question—and it is not a difficult one—is
    whether the exclusions were proper.
    We hold that the district court did not improperly exclude Maxwell’s family and
    friends from the courtroom. It is well established that “a trial court may, in the
    appropriate exercise of its discretion, exclude spectators when necessary to preserve order
    in the courtroom.” State v. Ware, 
    498 N.W.2d 454
    , 458 (Minn. 1993). The district court
    excluded Maxwell’s companions only after they engaged in improper communication
    around jurors, they were warned that they would be excluded if they continued that
    conduct, and they continued that conduct. The defendant is not the only party in a
    criminal trial, and the state, representing the people, has a right to an unmanipulated jury.
    Because the exclusion was proper, it suggests neither an abuse of the district court’s
    discretion nor a violation of Maxwell’s right to a public trial.
    4
    Maxwell provided us with a supplemental, pro se brief that states concerns about
    her decision to proceed to trial rather than plead guilty and about her sentence. Because
    she does not support these concerns with any arguments or legal authority, we will not
    address them substantively. See State v. Bartylla, 
    755 N.W.2d 8
    , 22 (Minn. 2008) (“We
    will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or
    citations to legal authority.”).
    Affirmed.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A14-1239

Filed Date: 6/8/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021