## Facts

- A gang-related shooting in Albuquerque resulted in the death of Alberto Sandoval and injuries to others.
- Manuel Turrietta, associated with gangs “Bad Boys Krew (BBK)” and “Thugs Causing Kaos (TCK),” was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder (with firearm enhancement), shooting at or from a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and tampering with evidence.
- Before trial, the State sought to clear “unnecessary persons” from the courtroom during testimony of cooperating witnesses who were current or former gang members, citing threats and intimidation.
- At a hearing outside the jury’s presence, witnesses testified about threats, and the court received information about gang-related markings near the courtroom.
- The district court ordered a partial closure during certain testimony, excluding roughly 30 spectators while allowing the parties, their families, the press, and court staff to remain.
- On appeal, Turrietta argued the closure violated the public-trial right and that the State suppressed favorable evidence under Brady; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court granted review on the public-trial and Brady issues.

## Issues

1. Whether the partial courtroom closure during cooperating witnesses’ testimony violated the Sixth Amendment and state-constitutional right to a public trial.
2. Whether the prosecution violated Brady by suppressing favorable, material evidence related to cooperating witnesses.
3. Whether cumulative error required reversal.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court held the partial closure violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right.
- The court rejected the “substantial reason” standard for partial closures and required satisfaction of the Waller closure test.
- The court concluded the closure was broader than necessary, the trial court did not adequately consider reasonable alternatives, and the findings were insufficient to justify closure.
- The court held no Brady violation occurred because Turrietta did not prove suppression of favorable, material evidence; disclosed agreements and speculation about undisclosed files were insufficient.
- The convictions were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial based on the structural public-trial violation; Brady and cumulative error did not provide independent grounds for relief.

## Legal Principles

- Courtroom closure—whether total or partial—during core criminal-trial proceedings must satisfy Waller: (1) an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, (2) closure no broader than necessary, (3) consideration of reasonable alternatives, and (4) adequate findings supporting closure.
- Generalized safety concerns, without narrowly tailored exclusions, exploration of alternatives, and specific supporting findings, do not justify excluding large portions of the public.
- A violation of the Sixth Amendment public-trial right is structural error requiring reversal without harmless-error analysis.
- A Brady claim requires proof that the prosecution suppressed evidence, that it was favorable (exculpatory or impeaching), and that it was material; speculation about undisclosed benefits or files does not establish suppression.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the district court’s partial courtroom closure during witness testimony failed Waller’s requirements and thus violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right; it separately found no Brady violation due to a lack of proof that favorable, material evidence was suppressed.


State v. Turrietta, 308 P.3d 964 (N.M. 2013)