Title: State v. Klem

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

438 N.W.2d 798 (1989) The STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ernest KLEM, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 880148. Supreme Court of North Dakota. March 22, 1989. *799 Jay Brovold, State's Atty., Medora, and Richard R. Tessier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atty. General's Office, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Jay Brovold. Appearance by Richard R. Tessier. Thomas M. Tuntland (argued), Mandan, for defendant and appellant. LEVINE, Justice. Ernest Klem (Klem) appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts[1] of gross sexual imposition in violation of § 12.1-20-03, N.D.C.C., from the judgment of conviction, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. We reverse and remand for a new trial. The victim of the offenses was Klem's adopted son. A general recitation of facts is unnecessary. Of several issues Klem has raised on appeal, we need consider only one: Just before the child victim testified, the State asked that the courtroom be cleared. The following colloquy occurred between the court and counsel at the bench: The court then cleared the courtroom of all persons except court personnel, parties, attorneys, jurors, and a "representative of the public media." Klem contends that the trial court's exclusion of the public during the child's testimony deprived him of his right to a public trial under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 12, N.D. Const. The State contends that Klem did not preserve this issue for review, arguing that his "`objection' to the partial closure of the Courtroom was not a proper, *800 valid objection" because "for there to be a valid objection giving rise to error, there must be grounds asserted therefor." (See Explanatory Note, Rule 51, N.D.R.Crim.P.). We conclude that any articulated objection for the purpose of resisting an untimely, unsupported motion to close a trial to the public fulfills the evidentiary rule that the State argues is applicable. We also conclude that Klem was improperly deprived of his right to a public trial. Historically, we have exhibited a strong preference for public trials and our state and federal constitutions presume open trials as the norm. See, e.g., Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980); Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S. Ct. 2898, 61 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1979); Minot Daily News v. Holum, 380 N.W.2d 347 (N.D. 1986); Dickinson Newspapers, Inc. v. Jorgensen, 338 N.W.2d 72 (N.D.1983). The public-trial guarantee was created for the benefit of the accused. Waller v. Georgia, supra; State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326, 124 N.W. 71 (1909). A public trial restrains possible abuses of judicial power, encourages participants to perform their duties conscientiously, brings forth witnesses who might be unknown to the parties and might not otherwise testify, and tends to assure testimonial trustworthiness. Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir.1984); 3 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 23.1(a) (1984). While the right to a public trial is not absolute and "may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests ... [s]uch circumstances will be rare, however, and the balance of interests must be struck with special care." Waller v. Georgia, supra, 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S. Ct. at 2215, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 38. Thus, a party moving to close a criminal proceeding must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced. Waller v. Georgia, supra. A movant must make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to the relief his motion seeks. See Northwestern Equipment, Inc. v. Badinger, 403 N.W.2d 8 (N.D.1987). In Badinger a movant for summary judgment did not make a threshold showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with the result that the opponent was not required to respond to the motion with affidavits. Similarly, the burden is on a movant for closure of a trial to the public to make a threshold showing that there is an overriding interest that can be protected only by closure. The weight of that burden is substantial. Douglas v. Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1532, 1539 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1208, 105 S. Ct. 1170, 84 L. Ed. 2d 321 (1985) ("one who seeks to justify closure of a criminal trial carries a heavy burden"). The "bare assertions of counsel" (Minot Daily News v. Holum, supra, 380 N.W.2d at 350) are insufficient to constitute a threshold showing justifying closure. Further, a motion to close a trial to the public must ordinarily be made before trial. See Rule 17.1, N.D.R.Crim.P. The reason is obviousto avoid unfair surprise and to give the trial court the benefit of the parties' research and arguments. In this case, the State did not make a pretrial motion. It framed its midtrial motion in only the most general terms and it failed to provide the trial court with specific facts sufficient to justify closure. Without warning, and as the child was seated in the witness stand ready to testify, the State requested closure of the trial during the child's testimony. The impact of this last-minute "motion" was significant. This was the second trial.[3] The entire first trial was open to the public. Therefore, the surprise to the defendant from the State's untimely and unsupported motion to close the trial cannot be overestimated. Under these circumstances, namely, an untimely, unsupported motion to close, we hold that Klem was not required to respond with any greater specificity than he did, and that his objection was sufficient to register his resistance to the motion. *801 In Waller v. Georgia, supra, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a defendant's express sixth amendment right to a public trial enjoys at least equal footing with the implied first amendment right of the press and public. Sensitive to the fact that Waller involved closure of only a suppression hearing and not a trial, the Waller court reasoned that, because suppression hearings "often are as important as the trial itself," they too must be open unless the tests for closure set out in PressEnterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984), and its predecessors are met. Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 46, 104 S. Ct. at 2215, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 39. The applicable rules in PressEnterprise are: There is thus an absolute requirement that before the trial court may exclude the public, it must articulate its reasons on the record and those reasons must be expressed in findings that enable a reviewing court to exercise its function. The court summarized the requirements in Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S. Ct. at 2216, 81 L.Ed.2d at 39: The requirement of findings by the trial court is not merely to give the reviewing court something to review, but more importantly, to evidence that the trial court has in fact considered and weighed the competing interest of an accused to a public trial with the interest of a child sexual abuse victim to a stress-controlled environment. A hearing and findings encourage the careful consideration warranted by a motion to close a trial. In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982), the United States Supreme Court invalidated a state statute requiring exclusion of press and public during the testimony of minor sexual abuse victims. Globe recognizes a compelling interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minor victims of sex crimes and does not prohibit closure. However, Globe does require that a trial court make a particularized determination that a child witness is in need of protection before closing a trial to protect the child. This the trial court did not do. There was no hearing, no weighing of competing interests, and no findings to support closure. While the trial court's allowance of the presence of a media representative may have satisfied the public's first amendment right, it did not address the defendant's sixth amendment right to a public trial. Where a defendant has objected to the exclusion of the public, compliance with the closure requirements enunciated in Waller v. Georgia, supra, is necessary and noncompliance is reversible error. See, e.g., State v. Hightower, 376 N.W.2d 648 (Iowa App.1985), where the trial court granted the prosecutor's request that spectators be excluded while a ten-year-old child testified. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because "the prosecutor did not articulate for the record an `overriding interest' that would likely be prejudiced, and the trial court failed to make adequate findings to support the closure." Id., at 650. See also People v. Holveck, 171 Ill. App.3d 38, 121 Ill.Dec. 25, 524 N.E.2d 1073 (1988), where the trial court excluded the public from the trial during the testimony of 6-year-old sexual assault victims. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, stating at 121 Ill.Dec. 35, 524 N.E.2d 1083: The State has pointed out that the trial court suggested after trial that the ruling would have been the same had Waller been followed. In denying Klem's motion for a new trial, the trial court stated in part: An appellate court may not provide a post hoc rationale for why the trial court would have closed the trial had it held a hearing and made findings. The Waller court expressly invalidated such efforts by the Georgia Supreme Court: The trial court's post hoc rationalization is similarly unavailing here. While the child victim's testimony was of a sensitive nature, it is apparent that the trial court's post hoc rationale for why it would have closed the trial had it held a hearing is insufficient. Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court's rationale "finds little or no support in the record" (Waller, supra). Without having weighed evidence as to such factors as the child victim's psychological maturity and understanding, his desires, and the interests of his parents and other relatives, the trial court's statements do not constitute the kind of "particularized determinations in individual cases" (Globe Newspaper Co., supra, 457 U.S. at 611 n. 27, 102 S. Ct. at 2622 n. 27, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 260 n. 27) required by Waller, Press-Enterprise and Globe. Waller requires that a hearing be conducted and that findings be made before a trial is closed to the public. The trial court, therefore, erred in excluding the public, except for one media representative, from the courtroom during the child victim's testimony without first conducting a hearing and making findings in accordance with the Waller requirements. A defendant need not "prove specific prejudice in order to obtain relief for a violation of the public-trial guarantee." Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 49, 104 S. Ct. at 2217, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 40. Nor do we apply a harmless-error analysis to such errors, for "`[t]he harmless error rule is no way to gauge the great, though intangible, societal loss that flows' from closing courthouse doors." Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 49 n. 9, 104 S. Ct. at 2217 n. 9, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 40 n. 9, quoting People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 364, 391 N.E.2d 1335, 1340 (1979). Our conclusion that the trial court erred in closing the trial during the child victim's testimony without conducting a hearing and making findings requires us to *803 determine a remedy. The court in Waller granted only qualified relief by ordering a public suppression hearing, but no new trial unless a new "public suppression hearing results in the suppression of material evidence not suppressed at the first trial, or in some other material change in the positions of the parties" (Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 50, 104 S. Ct. at 2217, 81 L.Ed.2d at 41). The theory underlying the qualified relief granted in Waller is that if the public suppression hearing ordered did not result in a change in the evidence to be admitted, a new trial would be a windfall because the defendant had already been tried and convicted on the evidence that would be admissible in a new trial. Here, however, the public was excluded from the trial, not a suppression hearing.[4] It is impossible to discern what effect the error had on the trial.[5] We therefore believe that the appropriate relief is a new trial. If, on remand, the State again wishes to have the general public excluded during the victim's testimony, it may again seek closure. Before ordering closure, the trial court will be required to conduct a hearing and make findings in accordance with the Waller requirements. As in Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 50, 104 S. Ct. at 2217, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 41, the "decision should be made in light of conditions at the time of the new hearing, and only interests that still justify closure should be considered." Reversed and remanded for a new trial. MESCHKE, GIERKE and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice, dissenting. Ernest Klem has appealed from a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts[1] of gross sexual imposition in violation of § 12.1-20-03, N.D.C.C., from the judgment of conviction, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. I would reverse and remand for a hearing and findings as to whether or not members of the public, with exception of one representative of the media, may be properly excluded during the testimony of one witness pursuant to the standards set forth in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 2215, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31, 38 (1984). I would not grant a new trial unless that hearing required it. The victim of the offenses was Klem's adopted son, Lyle (a pseudonym). The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict has not been challenged and a general recitation of facts is unnecessary. Klem has raised the following issues: Klem contends that the trial court's exclusion of the public during Lyle's testimony deprived him of his right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 12, N.D. Const. Just before Lyle testified, the State asked that the courtroom be cleared. The following colloquy occurred between the court and counsel at the bench: The court then cleared the courtroom of all persons except court personnel, parties, attorneys, jurors, and a "representative of the public media."[3] The United States Supreme Court has found that "the press and public have a qualified First Amendment right to attend a criminal trial. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980)." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 44-45, 104 S. Ct. at 2214, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 37. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984), the Court extended that right not only to the trial as such but also to the voir dire proceeding in which the jury is selected. Although Richmond, Globe, and Press-Enterprise involved First Amendment challenges to closed proceedings, in Waller, the Court stated that "there can be little doubt that the explicit Sixth Amendment right of the accused is no less protective of a public trial than the implicit First Amendment right of the press and public." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 46, 104 S. Ct. at 2215, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 38. The Supreme Court has said that "[n]o right ranks higher than the right of the accused to a fair trial." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. at 508, 104 S. Ct. at 823, 78 L. Ed. 2d at 637. "The central aim of a criminal proceeding must be to try the accused fairly, *805 and `[o]ur cases have uniformly recognized the public-trial guarantee as one created for the benefit of the defendant.'" Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 46, 104 S. Ct. at 2215, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 38. In Press-Enterprise, the Court enunciated several factors supporting public trials: Public trials, however, are not always mandated. In Globe, the Court stated: In Globe, the criminal defendant had been charged with the forcible rape and forced unnatural rape of three minor girls. The trial judge ordered the courtroom closed during several preliminary hearings and Globe moved that the court revoke the order. The trial court denied Globe's motions and ordered the exclusion of the press and general public from the courtroom during the trial. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Court agreed with the State that safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is a compelling interest. In Waller, the United States Supreme Court held that "under the Sixth Amendment any closure of a suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the tests set out in Press-Enterprise and its predecessors." Waller v. Georgia, supra, 467 U.S. at 47, 104 S. Ct. at 2216, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 39. Further, There are a number of differences between the circumstances in Waller and those of the instant case which diminish much of the precedential force of Waller. Waller involved police wiretaps that revealed a large lottery operation involving gambling on the volume of stocks and bonds traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Prior to trial, the petitioners and other defendants moved to suppress the wiretaps and evidence seized in searches. The State moved to close the suppression hearing, stating that "in order to validate the seizure of evidence derived from the *806 wiretaps the State would have to introduce evidence `which [might] involve a reasonable expectation of privacy of persons other than' the defendants." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 41, 104 S. Ct. at 2213, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 35. "The intercepted conversations that were played included some persons who were not then on trial, but no one who had not been named in the indictment." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 42, 104 S. Ct. at 2213, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 36. The trial court in Waller ordered a complete closure, over defendant's objection, of the proceedings to all but witnesses, court personnel, parties and lawyers; in this case, a representative of the public media was allowed to remain in the courtroom. In Waller, the entire seven-day suppression hearing was closed, although less than 2½ hours were devoted to playing tapes of intercepted telephone conversations. In this case, the courtroom was closed for only part of one day during the testimony of only one witness. The hearing closed in Waller involved wiretap telephone conversations related to a lottery operation; the part of the trial closed in this case involved the testimony of an 11-year-old boy about sexual acts allegedly committed upon him by his adoptive father, the substance of which was introduced in open court through the testimony of other witnesses. An 11-year-old boy testifying about sexual acts allegedly committed upon him by his adoptive father presents a much more compelling case for protection than indicted adult participants in telephone conversations intercepted by wiretaps in a gambling investigation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Waller specifically held that "any closure of a suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the tests set out in Press-Enterprise and its predecessors." [Emphasis ours.] Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 47, 104 S. Ct. at 2216, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 39. Here, Klem's only response to the prosecutor's closure request was his counsel's statement during the bench conference: "Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm sorry, he does object. I don't have any grounds to object however." If a criminal defendant thinks a trial court is "about to deprive him of a federal constitutional right there is every reason for his following state procedure in making known his objection." Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 2508, 53 L. Ed. 2d 594, 610 (1977). Our procedure for preserving a point on appeal is to object, based on proper grounds, to permit the trial court to correct its error, if any, or to enable the opposing party to correct an alleged defect. Explanatory Note, Rule 51, N.D.R.Crim.P. An objection "should be so specific that its meaning is clear." Hultberg v. Hjelle, 286 N.W.2d 448, 457 n. 4 (N.D.1979). An objection should give the opponent the basis of what is objectionable and bring the matter to the trial court's attention so that the court can intelligently rule on it. State v. Helgeson, 303 N.W.2d 342 (N.D.1981). See also State v. Hepper, 316 N.W.2d 338 (N.D.1982); State v. Moore, 286 N.W.2d 274 (N.D.1979). "It is not our function to seek out error, which the trial court was not given an opportunity to rectify, or to remake the record for review, or to allow second guesses on trial strategy." Waletzko v. Herdegen, 226 N.W.2d 648, 653 (N.D.1975). While he did not specifically raise it as an issue, Klem has asserted that he: Rule 43, N.D.R.Crim.P., generally provides that a defendant has a right to be present at every stage of his trial. We have said that a defendant in a criminal trial also has a constitutional right to be present at every stage of the proceedings against him. State v. Iverson, 187 N.W.2d 1 (N.D.1971) (holding that it was error, though harmless, to exclude the defendant from in-chamber conferences). But cf. United States v. Williams, 455 F.2d 361 (9th Cir.1972), where the defendant, who was in court during bench conferences, contended that his right to attend all proceedings *807 was violated by his absence from the bench conference. The court held that the trial court "was entitled to rely on counsel's performance of his agency duties and assume appellant's absence from the bench was voluntary." Id. at 365. Klem was in the courtroom when the bench conference in issue occurred. No evidence has been drawn to our attention showing that Klem was excluded from bench conferences. No evidence has been drawn to our attention showing that Klem requested that he be present at bench conferences. There has been no showing as to why Klem did not accompany his attorney to the bench for bench conferences. As the court said in Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512, 96 S. Ct. 1691, 1697, 48 L. Ed. 2d 126, 135 (1976): Despite the differences between Waller and the instant case, despite the weakness of Klem's objection to the State's closure request, and notwithstanding the fact that I believe the evidence sufficient to sustain Klem's conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Klem's motion for new trial in resolving the other issues raised in the motion, I think this case must be remanded for a hearing and findings in accordance with the procedure specified in Waller v. Georgia, supra. Waller requires that a hearing be conducted and that findings be made before a suppression hearing is closed to the public. We have recognized that the principles of law preserving the right of a fair trial also apply to preliminary hearings. Dickinson Newspapers, Inc. v. Jorgensen, 338 N.W.2d 72, 79 (N.D.1983); see also Minot Daily News v. Holum, 380 N.W.2d 347 (N.D.1986). Having concluded that those principles apply to a preliminary hearing, it naturally follows that they apply to a trial. The trial court, therefore, erred in excluding the public, except for one media representative, from the courtroom during Lyle's testimony without first conducting a hearing and making findings in accordance with the Waller requirements. As in Waller, the question that remains is what relief should be ordered to remedy the violation. I agree that a defendant need not "prove specific prejudice in order to obtain relief for a violation of the public-trial guarantee." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 49, 104 S. Ct. at 2217, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 40. I also agree with the Waller court that this view does not require a new trial. Rather, "the remedy should be appropriate to the violation." Waller, 467 U.S. at 50, 104 S. Ct. at 2217, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 41. In this case, in the hearing on Klem's motion for a new trial, the trial court considered the parties' arguments in light of the Waller requirements. In denying the motion for new trial, the trial court stated in part: I have examined Lyle's testimony, and, although I do not set it forth, I conclude that it would have been very traumatic for him to relate that testimony, about the sexual acts allegedly committed upon him by Klem, in front of the general public in open court. In my view, the facts testified to by Lyle clearly support the trial court's early concerns at the time of the prosecutor's closure motion and at the time of Klem's motion for new trial. In the interests of justice, however, I would remand for the trial court to conduct a hearing for the receipt of evidence and legal argument, and make findings in compliance with the procedure required by Waller. If, after a new hearing, essentially the same findings are made, "a new trial presumably would be a windfall for the defendant, and not in the public interest [cite omitted]." Waller, 467 U.S. at 50, 104 S. Ct. at 2217, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 41. A new trial should be required only if, after a hearing on remand, a newly assigned judge from outside the district in which the trial was held, concludes that with the exception of one representative of the media, the public, including relatives and friends of the defendant, may not be properly excluded during Lyle's testimony. Because my directions on remand would include a new trial only upon the conditions set forth herein, I must address the further claims made by Klem at this time. Klem contends that the trial court erred in not excusing two potential jurors for *809 cause, thus requiring that he exhaust his peremptory challenges, resulting in the seating of a juror that Klem wanted to excuse with a peremptory challenge. Klem argues that the two challenged jurors were equivocal about their ability to return a not guilty verdict if Klem did not testify, about whether they thought Klem "had to prove" anything, about whether they could set their opinions aside, and about whether they could rely only on the evidence presented in court. "[T]he formation of an opinion or impression regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence." Commentary to Standard 15-2.5, Challenges for Cause, III A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice p. 15.59 (2d ed. 1986) [quoting ALI Code of Criminal Procedure (1930) ]. A prospective juror need not "be excused merely because he knows something of the case to be tried or has formed some opinions regarding it." 2 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 21.3(c), p. 729 (1984). "The relevant question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors at Yount's trial had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant." Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1035, 104 S. Ct. 2885, 2891, 81 L. Ed. 2d 847, 856 (1984). As the court said in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S. Ct. 1639, 1642-1643, 6 L. Ed. 2d 751, 756 (1961): See also State v. Gross, 351 N.W.2d 428 (N.D.1984), and State v. Olson, 290 N.W.2d 664 (N.D.1980), applying Irvin v. Dowd, supra. A juror's partiality is a question of fact. Patton v. Yount, supra. The determination of a juror's partiality "is essentially one of credibility, and therefore largely one of demeanor." Id., 467 U.S. at 1038, 104 S. Ct. at 2892, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 858. "Demeanor plays a fundamental role not only in determining juror credibility, but also in simply understanding what a potential juror is saying." Id., 467 U.S. at 1038 n. 14, 104 S. Ct. at 2892 n. 14, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 858 n. 14 (1984). "[T]he manner of the juror while testifying is oftentimes more indicative of the real character of his opinion than his words. That is seen below, but cannot always be spread upon the record. Care should, therefore, be taken in the reviewing court not to reverse the ruling below upon such a question of fact, except in a clear case." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 156, 25 L. Ed. 244, 247 (1879) (quoted in Patton v. Yount, supra, 467 U.S. at 1037 n. 12, 104 S. Ct. at 2892 n. 12, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 858 n. 12). The trial court's resolution of questions about a juror's partiality is entitled to special deference. Patton v. Yount, supra. "[T]he question is whether there is fair support in the record for the [trial court's] conclusion that the jurors here would be impartial." Id., 467 U.S. at 1038, 104 S. Ct. at 2892-2893, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 858. Klem argues that one of the two challenged potential jurors said he "might be able" to return a not guilty verdict if Klem did not testify, said that he thought Klem probably would have to establish his innocence, and "never equivocally [sic] stated that he could lay aside his opinions." Klem argues that the other challenged potential juror, when asked "if she could put aside completely and ignore what she had heard from other sources and rely only on what she had heard at the trial," replied that she was "not sure," that she "would try" to rely only on the evidence presented in court, and that she felt that Klem "had to prove" something. While the potential jurors' responses relied upon by Klem were somewhat equivocal responses to questions put to them by defense counsel, their responses to questions *810 put to them by the trial court were more definite. The following colloquy took place between the court and one of the challenged jurors: The following colloquy took place between the court and the other challenged juror: What the prospective jurors meant by their responses in voir dire was a question of fact for the trial court, who was in a position to judge their credibility and discern their conscientiousness. "The trial judge properly may choose to believe those statements that were the most fully articulated or that appeared to have been least influenced by leading." Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. at 1040, 104 S. Ct. at 2893, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 859. "[O]nly the trial judge could tell which of [the] answers was said with the greatest comprehension and certainty." Id. As in Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. at 1040, 104 S. Ct. at 2893, 81 L.Ed.2d at 859: As a juror's partiality is a question of fact, the trial court's resolution, which is presumptively correct, is entitled to special deference, and ought not be reversed except in a clear case. Patton v. Yount, supra. A trial court's determination on whether a prospective juror should be dismissed for cause will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion. State v. Gross, 351 N.W.2d 428. From my review of the record, I conclude that the trial court could properly have determined that each of the challenged jurors could "lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court." Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S. Ct. at 1642-1643, 6 L. Ed. 2d at 756. I am, therefore, not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the challenged jurors for cause. Section 12.1-20-01, N.D.C.C., previously provided that prosecutions for various sex offenses involving minor victims could not be maintained "unless the alleged offense was brought to the notice of public authority within three months after a parent, guardian, or other competent person specifically interested in the victim, learned of the offense."[5] In State v. Tibor, 373 N.W.2d 877 (N.D.1985), we held that the section was a statute of limitation, and that the State must prove either compliance with the limitation or an exception to it. In State v. Ford, 377 N.W.2d 125, 126 (N.D.1985), we observed that "[w]hen there are issues of fact concerning the applicability of a statute of limitations, it is appropriate for the trial court to refer the matter to the jury." Klem contends that the trial court "denied his right to have the jury decide the issue" of whether or not the prompt reporting requirement had been met. I disagree. It is important to note that in State v. Ford, supra, there was conflicting evidence as to when the mother of the minor victim of a sex offense learned of the offense, thus raising a factual issue for the jury to resolve. In my view there is no conflicting evidence justifying submission of the issue to the jury in this case. Klem argues that there is a dispute as to whether the offense was reported in October 1984 or October 1985, relying on Dr. Cook's reference to October 1984. Dr. Cook testified that his initial report said October 1984, but that he "meant 1985" and that "I would anticipate that I either misspoke as I dictated that or the secretary mistransposed `84 for `85." The other witnesses testifying about the reporting time testified to learning of the offense and reporting it in 1985. I am satisfied that there was no actual dispute as to the time involved. Klem asserts error in that "Dr. Cook was permitted to testify, over objection, that he entertained the opinion that [Lyle] had not been `contaminated' by leading questions to tell a certain kind of story." He argues that asking Dr. Cook "to express an opinion as to whether [Lyle] had, in fact, been contaminated ... was tantamount to asking Dr. Cook whether he believed [Lyle] was telling the truth" and "invaded the province of the jury." I disagree. Initially, I note that it was Klem's trial counsel who broached the subject of "contamination" when he initiated the following exchange with Dr. Cook:[6] On redirect examination, Dr. Cook later testified as to how to determine whether or not a witness has been contaminated and also testified that, in his opinion, Lyle "was not contaminated." The subject of testimonial contamination of a child witness through leading questions is one in which most jurors are not likely to have much, if any, experience. Thus, Dr. Cook's opinion could "be of appreciable help to the jury in a field in which the ordinary juror needs help" [State v. Carroll, 123 N.W.2d 659, 673 (N.D.1963) ], especially after his testimony that it was "possible" that Lyle had been contaminated. We do not believe Dr. Cook's testimony "lent a stamp of undue legitimacy" [State v. Logue, 372 N.W.2d 151, 157 (S.D. 1985) ] to Lyle's testimony. Nor is this a case like United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336 (8th Cir.1986), where an expert on child abuse "was allowed to testify that Wendy was believable and that he could `see no reason why she would not be telling the truth in this matter'" (Id. at 339), thus "putting his stamp of believability on Wendy's entire story." Id. at 340. Dr. Cook only testified that Lyle had not been contaminated by incorrectly leading questions. Dr. Cook did not give an "opinion of the accuracy, reliability or credibility of a particular witness in the case being tried." State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 475, 720 P.2d 73, 76 (1986). I conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Cook to testify that, in his opinion, Lyle had not been "contaminated." Klem asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit a polygraph examiner to express his opinion as to whether or not "Klem was telling the truth when he denied sexual contact with [Lyle]." In Healy v. Healy, 397 N.W.2d 71, 74 n. 1 (N.D.1986), we summarized our polygraph jurisprudence: In State v. Newnam, 409 N.W.2d 79 (N.D. 1987), we recently held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the results of polygraph examinations, where the defendant did not offer any evidence of *813 the reliability of polygraph examinations. Thus, polygraph results generally are not admissible in criminal trials in North Dakota unless the prosecution and defense have stipulated to their admissibility, at least where there is no evidence of the scientific reliability and acceptance of the results of polygraph examinations. We note that polygraph test results are also generally not admissible in federal courts. Annotation, Modern Status Of Rule Relating To Admission Of Results of Lie Detector (Polygraph) Test In Federal Criminal Trials, 43 A.L.R. Fed. 68, § 3 (1979). The prosecution and defense did not stipulate to the admissibility of the results of a polygraph examination. Klem made an offer of proof on the record. While Klem did offer to prove that the "polygraph is widely and commonly accepted in the law enforcement community" and offered to prove that "the polygraph examination is commonly accepted in the business employment community," he did not offer to prove that polygraph examinations are accepted as reliable in the scientific community. I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered polygraph examination results. For the reasons stated, I would reverse and remand this case for a hearing and findings on whether or not, with the exception of one representative of the media, the public, including friends and relatives of the defendant, should be excluded during Lyle's testimony and for entry of an order granting a new trial only if the trial court concludes that the public should not be excluded. If the court does not so conclude, it should enter a new judgment of conviction. To encourage a completely new and independent view of this issue and the facts relevant to it, unencumbered by having been involved in considering this issue heretofore first at the time of the closure motion and then again at time of hearing of the motion for new trial, I would reassign this case to a new district court judge, outside the judicial district in which the case was tried, for proceedings subsequent to this appeal. [1] One count was for engaging in a sexual act with a person less than fifteen years old; the other count was for engaging in sexual contact with a person less than fifteen years old. [2] Klem was represented by different counsel on appeal than at trial. [3] The first trial resulted in a hung jury. [4] It is significant that this was a trial that was closed, as distinguished from a pretrial proceeding, as in Waller. Until recently, pretrial proceedings" were never characterized by the same degree of openness as were actual trials." Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, supra, 443 U.S. at 388, 99 S. Ct. at 2910, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 626. [5] On appeal, Klem has argued that he "was denied even the presence of his friends and relatives." In denying Klem's motion for a new trial, the court stated that it "would readily have granted" a request for the presence of relatives, such as the child victim's grandparents. Without a hearing, there was no reasonable opportunity for Klem to make such a request. The presence of the child victim's grandparents or other relatives could "provide moral support and comfort" [Aaron v. Capps, 507 F.2d 685, 688 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 878, 96 S. Ct. 153, 46 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1975)] as well as fulfill such objectives of a public trial as assuring testimonial trustworthiness. [1] One count was for engaging in a sexual act with a person less than fifteen years old; the other count was for engaging in sexual contact with a person less than fifteen years old. [2] Klem was represented by different counsel on appeal than at trial. [3] The trial court had previously sequestered the witnesses who were going to testify. Thus, some people had been excluded from the courtroom before the State's request to clear the courtroom. [4] Although the trial court refers to closure of the trial during the testimony of the child witnesses, a review of the record indicates that the courtroom was closed beginning with Lyle's testimony during the second day of trial. At the conclusion of Lyle's testimony that same day, the court recessed. The first witness to testify the next day of trial was Earl. The record does not indicate that the court remained closed during this testimony, or during the testimony of subsequent witnesses. [5] The provision has been repealed by S.L.1987, Ch. 167, § 1. [6] We note that even what would otherwise be incompetent evidence may be admissible "when the adversary has opened the door." State v. Jensen, 282 N.W.2d 55, 68 (N.D.1979).