Opinion ID: 2424746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of Witnesses from the Courtroom

Text: Hill's final point on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to exclude three subpoenaed witnesses from the courtroom after Hill invoked the rule. At trial, Hill invoked the rule, but the trial court allowed the foster parents and one DHS caseworker, Vicky Garner, to remain in the courtroom while the children testified because the children were afraid and wanted supportive faces in the audience. Hill claims this is error in violation of Ark. R. Evid. 615 and because part of Hill's defense was that the children had been told to make these allegations against him. The rule, Rule 615, requires the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom to prevent them from adjusting their testimony based upon what they have heard prior witnesses say. Exclusion is mandatory upon request by either party, and only specific exceptions exist to allow witnesses to remain in the courtroom. Clark v. State, 323 Ark. 211, 216, 913 S.W.2d 297 (1996). The standard of discretion given to the trial court is no discretion because the rule is mandatory. Blaylock v. Strecker, 291 Ark. 340, 344, 724 S.W.2d 470 (1987). The purpose of Rule 615 is to expose inconsistencies in the testimonies of different witnesses and `to prevent the possibility of one witness's shaping his or her testimony to match that given by other witnesses at trial.' Clark, supra, 323 Ark. at 217, 913 S.W.2d 297, quoting King v. State, 322 Ark. 51, 55, 907 S.W.2d 127, 129 (1995). As noted, however, exceptions to the rule do exist; principally, Ark. R. Evid. 616 allows a victim to be present in the courtroom during testimony. Furthermore, it provides that if the victims are under age eighteen, those children are allowed to have their parents, guardian, custodian, or other person with custody of the children to be present. Ark. R. Evid. 616. This Court has allowed a child's guardian to be present during the child's testimony at trial on previous occasions. See, Kester v. State, 303 Ark. 303, 797 S.W.2d 704 (1990). Though not precedent for this Court, we note the Arkansas Court of Appeals has specifically allowed a DHS caseworker to be present at trial when the victim is a child in DHS custody at the time of trial, and the child had the right to have his representative there under Rule 616. Gadberry v. State, 46 Ark.App. 121, 877 S.W.2d 941 (1994). Conspicuously absent from appellant's brief is any discussion of Rule 616's applicability to the facts of this case. Nor has appellant demonstrated that any prejudice resulted from the trial court not excluding the witnesses. In fact, appellant never called the witnesses to take the stand. Prejudice is not presumed, and the court will not reverse absent a showing of prejudice. Clark, supra, 323 Ark. at 216-217, 913 S.W.2d 297. We hold that the trial court did not err in permitting either the caseworker or the foster parents to be present during the hearing. They are covered by the exceptions stated in Rule 616.