Opinion ID: 1704856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: mrs. zyromski's temporary exclusion from the courtroom

Text: As a fifth issue, Booker argues that the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting Mrs. Zyromski, a great-niece of the murder victim, from being present in the courtroom during Booker's presentation of his case in mitigation until after she had testified on Booker's behalf. This issue comes to us in an unusual procedural posture because it is generally the State that seeks to have a murder victim's family members present in the courtroom, while the defendant generally seeks to have such individuals excluded. See Gore v. State, 599 So.2d 978, 985-86 (Fla.1992) (defendant arguing that trial court erred in excusing victim's stepmother from rule of sequestration solely because she was a relative of the victim); Sireci v. State, 587 So.2d 450, 454 (Fla.1991); Bellamy v. State, 594 So.2d 337, 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (defendant claiming due process violation because trial court allowed victim to be present in courtroom during trial); cf. Farina v. State, 680 So.2d 392, 395 (Fla. 1996) (defendant claiming he was prejudiced by the fact that surviving victims and their families were seated in the first two rows in front of the jury box); Hall v. State, 579 So.2d 329, 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (defendant challenging trial court's decision to allow victim's son to sit at counsel table and assist prosecutor at trial). Indeed, the issue here appears to be one of first impression in Florida, and it arises because Mrs. Zyromski testified on Booker's behalf. After careful consideration, we determine that Booker is not entitled to relief on this issue. The State concluded its case-in-chief during the penalty phase on the afternoon of March 24, 1998. Immediately thereafter, Booker began presenting his case in mitigation by introducing into evidence the affidavits of Ms. Florence Edmund and Ms. Patricia Singletary. After these affidavits were introduced, the trial court adjourned the hearing until the following day. At the beginning of the proceedings on the following day, defense counsel announced that Mrs. Zyromski had asked counsel if she could remain in the courtroom and observe the proceedings prior to giving her testimony. [19] The prosecutor objected, noting that even though a victim's family member has a right to be present in the courtroom, if it is the strategy of the case that you are a witness in the case, then I believe that you're under the normal rules of sequestration of witnesses. After considering defense counsel's response that a member of the victim's family has more expansive rights of observation than does an ordinary individual, the trial court agreed with the State and ordered Mrs. Zyromski to remain outside the courtroom. The trial court did determine, however, that Mrs. Zyromski could remain in court after she testified. Thus, Mrs. Zyromski was absent from court until she was called to testify the following morning. Consistent with its prior determination, the trial court allowed Mrs. Zyromski to remain in court after she testified, and Mrs. Zyromski also appeared at the Spencer hearing to present a statement on Booker's behalf, as did three other members of the victim's family. Article I, section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution provides: Victims of crime or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims, are entitled to the right to be informed, to be present, and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused. The State did not argue in the trial court, nor does it argue here, that Mrs. Zyromski did not qualify as the murder victim's next of kin, [20] thus placing her outside the purview of article I, section 16(b). Instead, the State argues that the general rule of sequestration outweighed Mrs. Zyromski's constitutional right to be present in the courtroom. As stated above, there is no Florida law directly addressing this issue in the posture before us for consideration. We have, however, addressed the reverse of this issue in the Gore case. In Gore, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in excusing the murder victim's stepmother from the rule of sequestration solely because she was a relative of the victim. See 599 So.2d at 985. After reciting the language set forth in article I, section 16(b), we stated: This provision does not provide an automatic exception to the rule of sequestration. While in general relatives of homicide victims have the right to be present at trial, this right must yield to the defendant's right to a fair trial. The rule of witness sequestration is designed to help ensure a fair trial by avoiding the coloring of a witness's testimony by that which he has heard from other witnesses who have preceded him on the stand. Spencer v. State, 133 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla.1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 880, 82 S.Ct. 1155, 8 L.Ed.2d 283 (1962), and cert. denied, 372 U.S. 904, 83 S.Ct. 742, 9 L.Ed.2d 730 (1963). However, a defendant does not have an absolute right to exclude witnesses from the courtroom. The trial judge is endowed with a sound judicial discretion to decide whether particular prospective witnesses should be excluded from the sequestration rule. Randolph v. State, 463 So.2d 186, 191 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 907, 105 S.Ct. 3533, 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985). Of course, should the witness' presence cause some prejudice to the accused, the witness should not be allowed to remain in the courtroom. Where the rule has been invoked, a hearing should be conducted to determine whether a witness' exclusion from the rule will result in prejudice to the accused. Id. at 192. In this case, although the trial judge did not hold a hearing to determine possible prejudice, he did hear argument from defense counsel on this issue before making his decision to exclude Ms. Roark. Counsel did not ask for any further proceeding, such as a proffer of testimony. In any event, the presence of Roark's stepmother in the courtroom during the trial did not prejudice Gore. Ms. Roark was not a material witness for the State; the extent of her participation at trial was her testimony that Susan usually wore several rings at one time and her identification of a necklace and four rings as similar to jewelry owned by Susan. We find no abuse of discretion in allowing this witness to be excluded from the rule of sequestration. 599 So.2d at 985-86. Similarly, in Farina, we determined that the defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the presence of surviving victims and their families in the courtroom, see 680 So.2d at 395, while in Sireci, we determined that the trial court correctly allowed the homicide victim's wife and son to remain in the courtroom after they had testified. See 587 So.2d at 454. When considered together, our decisions in Gore, Farina, and Sireci establish two general principles to be considered in analyzing a claim involving article I, section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution: (1) the rights provided to victims and victims' families under article I, section 16(b) are not absolute, as they are subordinate to the rights of an accused when the rights involved are in conflict; and (2) to be granted relief based on this type of issue, a party must establish prejudice. Given the procedural posture in this case, the first principle is not implicated; to the contrary, Booker wanted Mrs. Zyromski to be present in court. Thus, taking a literal interpretation of article I, section 16(b), Mrs. Zyromski was entitled to be present during the presentation of Booker's case. The relevant inquiry here, then, must focus on whether the purposes underlying the rule of sequestration outweighed Mrs. Zyromski's constitutional right to be present in court while Booker presented his case in mitigation. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court essentially determined that the rule of sequestration outweighed Mrs. Zyromski's constitutional right to be present in court. However, in circumstances such as this where the constitutional right to be present in court does not conflict with the accused's right to a fair trial, it is clear that the general rule should elevate the constitutional right above the rule of sequestration. Moreover, in this particular case, there is no concern that Mrs. Zyromski's testimony would be tainted by her presence in court, as her testimony primarily focused on the relationship she had established with Booker after he had been incarcerated on death row. Therefore, we determine that the trial court abused its discretion by preventing Mrs. Zyromski from being present in court until after she had testified. Even though the trial court abused its discretion regarding this issue, however, Booker has failed to assert how he may have been prejudiced by Mrs. Zyromski's temporary, one-day absence from court. Mrs. Zyromski testified on Booker's behalf, was allowed to remain in court after she testified, and further provided a statement to the trial court at the Spencer hearing. Similar to the defendants in Gore, Farina, and Sireci, Booker has failed to show how he was prejudiced by the trial court's action, and we hold the trial court's error in temporarily prohibiting Mrs. Zyromski from being in court to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1999) (determining that the harmless error standard set forth in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), remains applicable notwithstanding the Legislature's enactment of section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes 1999). Accordingly, we determine that Booker is not entitled to relief on this issue.