Court Opinion

ID: 9774719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:31:35.938643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:14.508929
License: Public Domain

HARRELL, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I agree with Judge Murphy’s dissent insofar as it prefers the “substantial reason” test to the “overriding interest” test, I join the judgment of the Majority opinion because, on this record, the State failed to meet its burden to demonstrate a substantial reason to exclude Norris, if not Myers also, solely by proffer of the prosecutor. Maj. op. at 455, 7 A.3d at 77. Even if the modality of a proffer was a
*466proper means to place the facts before the trial judge in these circumstances, the substance of the proffer here was inadequate. Maj. op. at 461, 7 A.3d at 80-81. Wise’s post hoc testimony, given after the closure was ordered, should not be considered in this analysis. Maj. op. at 456-57, 7 A.3d at 78.
For these reasons, I join the judgment of the Majority opinion.