Opinion ID: 2630520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: press photography

Text: ¶ 96 The court assistant argues that the trial court committed structural error by permitting the press to take photographs during the penalty phase hearings. He argues that this compromised Arguelles's Sixth Amendment right to represent himself since it may have influenced Arguelles's choice to seek the death penalty and not prepare a meaningful mitigation case. The court assistant also argues that allowing the photography violated the Eighth Amendment because the distraction of the photographer drove Arguelles to shorten the proceedings and reject a meaningful mitigation case. The State argues that the record shows no obvious and prejudicial Sixth Amendment violation, and that Arguelles had already decided to not oppose the death penalty prior to the penalty phase. ¶ 97 The United States Supreme Court has stated that while the First and Sixth Amendments guarantee the right of the press to attend a trial and report on what they have observed, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause assures each defendant the fundamental right to a fair trial. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 569, 571, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981). There is no per se prohibition or allowance of electronic media coverage during judicial proceedings. Id. at 569, 101 S.Ct. 802. However, a defendant might show that broadcast coverage of his particular case had an adverse impact on the trial participants sufficient to constitute a denial of due process. Id. at 581, 101 S.Ct. 802. ¶ 98 This court has stated that the media has a right of access to criminal proceedings, but this right is not absolute and is subject to exceptions. State v. Archuleta, 857 P.2d 234, 237 (1993); Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Lewis, 685 P.2d 515, 522 (1984). The right of access must be weighed against other considerations, including the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. Archuleta, 857 P.2d at 237. A court may restrict access altogether where necessary to assure that the defendant receives a fair trial .... Kearns-Tribune, 685 P.2d at 522. ¶ 99 Utah courts have discretion to allow still photography in the courtroom. Utah R. Judicial Admin. 4-401(4). In determining whether to allow still photography during a hearing, a judge should consider whether... photography can be accommodated without distracting the participants ... [and whether] there is a substantial likelihood photography would jeopardize the right to a fair hearing or trial .... Id. at 4-401(4)(A)(B). The court should forbid photography if it distracts by appearance or noise, or if it would create a distraction from the proceedings for any of the participants.... In Re Modification of Canon 3A(7), 628 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Utah 1981). ¶ 100 In Arguelles's motion to prohibit photography, he indicated that photography would be very distracting and irritating and would infringe upon his ability to represent himself. He also stated that he would refuse to appear if photography were allowed. After the trial court denied the motion, Arguelles threatened to leave the courtroom, but the court ordered him to stay. A short time later during the hearing, after standby counsel argued a motion to exclude victim impact evidence, standby counsel told the court that Arguelles had missed at least 50 percent of what we each had to say .... The court acknowledged that the photography was modestly distracting. On the second day of the penalty phase hearing, while cross-examining a witness, Arguelles asked the cameraman to knock that off, please. The trial court asked the cameraman to stop, but lifted the prohibition after the witness stepped down. ¶ 101 Arguelles's motion was made prior to the penalty phase, and he complained about the photography during the penalty phase hearing. Therefore, his objection was properly preserved. Because it is within the trial court's discretion under Utah R. Judicial Admin. 4-401(4) to allow still photography during hearings, we use an abuse of discretion standard of review. A trial judge is given a great deal of latitude in determining the most fair and efficient manner to conduct court business. Morton v. Continental Baking Co., 938 P.2d 271, 275 (Utah 1997). We will find that a trial court has abused its discretion only if the trial court's decision was `beyond the limits of reasonability.' State v. Olsen, 860 P.2d 332, 334 (Utah 1993) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992)). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's actions are inherently unfair or if we conclude that `no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.' State v. Russell, 791 P.2d 188, 192 (Utah 1990); State v. Schweitzer, 943 P.2d 649, 651 (Utah Ct. App.1997) (quoting State v. Gerrard, 584 P.2d 885, 887 (Utah 1978)). ¶ 102 We need not consider whether the trial court abused its discretion since we find that the press photography was not prejudicial. We are not convinced that Arguelles would have rejected the death penalty or presented a meaningful mitigation case had there not been photography during the penalty phase hearing. In fact, one month prior to filing the motion to prohibit photography, Arguelles had commented to the trial court that he would present very little, if any mitigation evidence. Further, Arguelles indicated as early as his confession to the crimes that he wished to seek the death penalty. We therefore find no Eighth Amendment violation and hold that any Sixth Amendment error in allowing still photography during the penalty phase hearing was harmless. We do encourage trial judges, however, to continue to exercise caution in maintaining quiet and non-distracting courtroom environments in all cases, and particularly in capital proceedings.