This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14 - 1998 State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs. Billy Ray Garrison, Appellant

. Filed November 1 6 , 2015 Affirmed Johnson , Judge Koochiching County District Court File No. 36

- CR

- 13

- 782 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Karen B. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Jeffrey S. Naglosky, Koochiching County Attorney, Internationa l Falls, Minnesota (for respondent) Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi Elstan Forte Axelson, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Kirk , Presiding Judge; Johnson , Judge; and Bjorkman , Judge

. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N JOHNSON , Judge A Koochiching County jury found Billy Ray Garrison guilty of multiple offenses based on evidence that he held his girlfriend captive for several hours, during which time2

he beat her and s exually assaulted her. During the trial, the district court implemented certain procedures that were designed to maintain order and decorum in the courtroom. Garrison argues that the district court’s courtroom

- management procedures caused the
courtroom to be closed to the public, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial . We conclude that the courtroom was not clos ed for purposes of Garrison’s constitutional right to a public trial . Therefore, we affirm. FACTS During the nighttime hours of November 28, 2013 , Garrison engaged in various forms of violen ce toward his girlfriend, M.N. For example, Garrison struck M.N. multiple times with his hands and fists. He repeatedly prevented her from breathing by covering her mouth and nose. H e picked her up and threw her down on the floor. He dragged her on the floor by her hair. He “hog

- tied” her by tying a nylon rope around her neck, wrists, and ankles and then raped her. After s everal hours , M.N. was able to escape to her brother’s house . M.N. ’s brother called the police. The police took M.N. to a hospital, where she was admitted and treated for multiple injuries . Due to the severity of her injuries, M.N. was transferred by ambulance to another hospital and treated for several days

. I n December 2013 , the state charged Garrison with five offenses : (1) first

- degree criminal sexual conduct , see Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i) (2012 ); (2) kidnapping ,
see Minn. Stat. § 609.25, subd. 1(2) (201 2 ); (3) theft of a motor vehicle , see Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) (201 2 ); (4) domestic assault by strangulation , see Minn.3

Stat. § 609.2247, subd. 2 (201 2 ); and (5) misdemeanor domestic assault , see Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1(2) (201 2 ). The case went to trial i n April 2014. At the outset of trial, the district court warned the parties , attorneys, and interested observers not to engage in nonverbal cues that might prejudice the jury , such as “hugging or coddling.” But on the second day of trial, immediately a fter M.N. finishe d her testi mony , she hugged her father for five to ten seconds in the back of the courtroom

. The district court promptly convened a bench conference with the attorneys. The district court noted that s everal of the jurors watched the hug and had visible r eactions. Noting its earlier warning, the district court declared a mistrial

. The retrial began the following day. At the outset of the retrial, the district court addressed both decorum and security issues

. Specifically, the district court reiterated its earlier warning that there be no prejudicial nonverbal cues. The district court also expressed concern about M.N.’s brother , who reportedly had been lingering outside the jail, yelling at Garrison and making obscene gestures through a window. In addition, the district court expressed its general concern about courtroom security and the bailiffs’ ability to manage an emotionally charged trial , mentioning the possibility of procuring additional personnel to provide security. In light of the distr ict court’s concerns, the prosecutor suggested that the district court may wish to keep the courtroom closed during trial

. In response, d efense counsel requested that the courtroom remain open, with additional security personnel

. The district court expre ssly stat ed that the courtroom would remain open , with certain4

procedure s to manage access to the courtroom

. Specifically, t he district court stated that, during voir dire and the evidentiary phase of trial, the courtroom doors would be locked but that an yone could enter the courtroom by contacting a person in court administration , who would provide an escort and allow entry to the courtroom in a quiet manner

. The district court also stated that, during closing arguments and the reading of jury instructions, the courtroom doors would be locked to prevent entry during those proceedings

. Garrison did not object to the se procedures after the district court articulated them

. The specific means by which the district court implemented its proce dures are not described in detail in the record, in part because there was no objection after the procedures were articulated

. The record indicates that a sign was posted on the outside of the locked courtroom door during voir dire and the presentation of evidence to inform members of the public how they could enter the courtroom. Immediately before closing arguments, the district court provided a reminder that the courtroom doors would be locked. The district court stated, “I don’t want people coming in and out, so if there’s anyone that wants to watch, get them in here before I start the instructions if they want
to.
. . . I don’t want interruptions during the instructions or during the closing arguments.
. . . Now, having said that, is there anyone e lse out there that wants to come in that wants to appear?” After the jury retired to deliberate, the district court stated, “The back door can be unlocked as far as I am concerned.” Nothing in the record indicates that any person attempted to attend any part of the trial but was denied entry to the courtroom.5

T he jury found Garrison guilty on all counts. The district court imposed a

se ntence of 172 months of im prison ment
. Garrison appeal s. D E C I S I O N Garrison argues that the district court erred by imp osing restrictions on access to the courtroom that violated his constitutional right to a public trial

. T he Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provide s, “ I n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a . . . public trial.” U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. “[ T ] he Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is for ‘the benefit of the accused,’ permitting the public to see that the defendant is ‘ fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned.’” State v. Silvernail , 831 N.W.2d 594, 600 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Waller v. Georgia , 467 U.S. 39, 46, 104 S. Ct. 2210 , 2215 (1984)). “In addition, ‘a public trial encourages witnesses to come forward and disco urages perjury.’” State v. Brown , 815 N.W.2d 609, 616 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Waller , 467 U.S. at 46, 104 S. Ct. at 2215 ). The constitutional right to a public trial applies during all phases of trial, including pre

- trial suppression hearings and voir dire of prospective jurors

. Id. at 617

. “But ‘the right to a public trial is not an absolute right.’” State v. Taylor , 869 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn. 2015) (quoting State v. Fageroos , 531 N.W.2d 199, 201 (Minn. 1995)). The closure of a courtroom may be justified if the “ party seeking to close the hearing .

. . advance[s] an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure [is] no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court .

. . consider[s] reasonable alternatives to closing th e proceeding, and .

. . make[s] findings adequate to support the6

closure.” Fageroos , 531 N.W.2d at 201 (quoting Waller , 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S. Ct. at 221 6 ) (other quotations omitted)

. Nonetheless , “‘[n] ot all courtroom restrictions implicate a defendant’s right to a public trial. ’ ” Taylor , 869 N.W.2d at 11 (quot ing Brown , 815 N.W.2d at 617 ) (alteration in original) . Some restrictions on access to the courtroom are considered so insignificant that they do not amount to a “true closure” of the courtroom and , thus, do not require an analysis of the Waller factors to determine whether the restrictions are justified

. See id.
at 11

- 12

. Accordingly, the threshold question is whether there was a “true closure ” of the
courtroom. See id

. A court must consider several factors to determin e whether a “true closure” occurred : (1) whether the courtroom was cleared of all spectators; (2) whether the trial remained open to the public and press; (3) whether there were p eriods where members of public were absent; and (4) whether the defendant, defendant’s family or friends, or any witnesses were excluded. Silvernail , 831 N.W.2d at 601 (citing State v. Lindsey , 632 N.W.2d 652, 660

- 61 (Minn. 2001)). This court applies a de novo standard of review to the question whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial has been violated. Brown , 815 N.W.2d at 616. Garrison challenges two different procedures that were in force at different times during trial proceedings. He first contends that the district court erred by locking the courtroom door and requiring members of the public to contact court administration to gain entry to the courtroom during voir dire and the evidentiary phase of trial . He next contends that the district court erred by locking the courtroom to prevent entry during7

closing argument s and the reading of jury instructions. We will separately consider Garrison’s challenge to each procedure. A . Voir Dire and Eviden tiary Phase We first consider whether there was a “true closure” during voir dire and the evidentiary phase of trial

. Garrison cont ends that the courtroom was closed at those times b ecause the requirement that interested members of the public contact court administration likely deterred members of the public from seeking entry to the
courtroom
. We are not aware of any caselaw concerning whether the particular procedure employed by the district court constitutes a closure of the courtroom. In the absence of such caselaw, we must apply the four Lindsey factors

. See Silvernail , 831 N.W.2d at 601. First, there is no indication in the recor d that the courtroom ever was cleared of all spectators. Second, the record indicates that the trial remained open to the public and press, so long as a member of the public or press followed the procedure described on the sign that was posted on the outs ide of the courtroom door. Third, there is no indication in the record that members of the public ever were absent from the courtroom. And fourth, there is no indication in the record that Garrison’s family or friends were excluded from the courtroom. S ee Lindsey , 632 N.W.2d at 660

- 61. These factors suggest that there was

no t a “true closure ” and, thus, no need to apply the Waller test to determine whether a closure of the courtroom was justified

. A recent supreme c ourt opinion supports the conclusion t hat there was no closure in this case. I n Taylor , the supreme court considered whether a “true closure” occurred8

when members of the public were required to show photo graphic identification before entering the courtroom. 869 N.W.2d at 10

- 12

. In applying the Lindsey factors, the supreme court noted that there was no indication that “the public was unable to attend due to the identification requirement” or that “even a single individual .

. . was actually excluded.” Id. at 11

- 12. T he supreme c ourt concluded that the requirement of photo graphic identification did not constitute a true closure of the courtroom and, thus, did not implicate the defendant’s right to a public trial. Id. at 12 ; see also S tate v. Cross , 771 N.W.2d 879, 881

- 83 (Minn. A pp. 2009) (concluding that requirements that persons show identification and be photographed before entering courtroom was not closure of courtroom). This case is analogous to Taylor

. In each case, the district court adopted a procedure that imposed a co ndition on entry to the courtroom. See Taylor , 869 N.W.2d
at 10 . But in each case, the condition was not designed to prevent anyone from entering the courtroom and, as far as the record reveals, did not produce that result. See id. at 11

- 12 . For those reasons, t he supreme court concluded in Taylor that there was no closure of the courtroom , which meant that it was unnecessary to conduct a Waller analysis. See id.
at 11

- 12

. T he same reasons lead to the same result in this case. Thus , the district court ’s procedure during voir dire and the evidentiary phase of trial in this case ( i.e. , locking the courtroom door but allowing persons to enter by contacting court administration) was no t a closure of the courtroom that implicates Garrison’s constitutional r ight to a public trial

.9

B . Closing Arguments and Jury Instructions We next consider whether there was a “true closure” during closing arguments and the reading of jury instructions. Garrison contends that the courtroom was closed at those times because an yone wishing to enter the courtroom during those times was excluded. The supreme court considered similar argument s in Silvernail and Brown

. In Silvernail , the supreme court considered whether locking the courtroom door during closing argument s constituted a closure. 831 N.W.2d at 600. In Brown , the supreme court considered whether locking the courtroom door during the reading of jury instructions constituted a closure. 815 N.W.2d at 616. In each case, the supreme court examin ed the Lindsey factors and concluded that there was no “true closure

. ” Silvernail , 831 N.W.2d at 601; Brown , 815 N.W.2d at 61 7

- 1 8. The supreme court reached th ose conclusion s because no one was removed from the courtroom, because any person present in the courtroom was permitted to remain , and because there was no indication that any person was actually prevented from entering the courtroom. Silvernail , 831 N.W.2d at 601; Brown , 815 N.W.2d at 617

- 18. The same essential facts are present in this case . T he district court never removed anyone from the cou rtroom . T he district court allowed all persons in the courtroom be fore closing argument s to remain in the courtroom (and even attempted to notify interested persons outside the courtroom before the doors were locked) . T here is no indication in the record that anyone was prevented from entering the courtroom . Because the facts of this case are practically identical to the facts of Silvernail and Brown , we reach the same conclusion that the supreme court reached in th ose cases.10

Thus, in light of the undisputed facts of this case, the district court’s locking of the courtroom doors during closing arguments and the reading of jury instructions was not a closure of the courtroom that implicates Garrison’s constitutional r ight to a public trial. In sum, the district court did not violat e Garrison’s constitutional right to a public trial. Affirmed.