# Longus v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · October 26, 2010 · 416 Md. 433

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774720

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth LONGUS v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** October 26, 2010
- **Citations:** 416 Md. 433; 7 A.3d 64; 2010 Md. LEXIS 624
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Murphy
- **Judges:** Greene, Harrell, Murphy
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774720

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- Stating that the reviewing court makes its own independent appraisal of the law but defers to the trial courts finding of facts unless they are clearly erroneous
- explaining that a court may not “exclude additional spectators who did not participate in the disruption based on the conduct of one spectator”

## Opinion text

MURPHY, J.,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated by the Court of Special Appeals in Longus v. State, 184 Md.App. 680 , 968 A.2d 140 (2009), I am persuaded that the “substantial reason” test, rather than the “overriding interest” test, should be applied to the partial courtroom closure that is at issue in the case at bar, in which only three people on the planet were excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of one witness. When Petitioner’s trial counsel did “not argue with respect to [the State’s request that the Petitioner’s father be excluded] because [the Petitioner’s father] ... may have had some involvement with communications with this witness[,]” this concession with respect to Petitioner’s father makes it clear that the Circuit Court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion for a partial closure. The only question to be decided is whether Ms. Myers and Mr. Norris should also have been excluded during Ms. Wise’s testimony.
As to Ms. Myers, the prosecutor stated:
Your Honor, I can tell the court that [Ms. Myers] has facilitated phone calls from the defendant to Miss Wise so that when Miss Wise sees her phone and sees her caller I.D. she believes its Millie Myers, she answers the phone and it’s the defendant. We’ve had that happening. We’ve also had communications where the defendant would tell Ms. Myers something and Ms. Myers would then pass that message along to uh this witness, specifically comments about needing to leave town and not to testify.
As to Mr. Norris, the prosecutor stated:
*467 Your Honor, just last night there was a communication between the defendant and Ms. Wise that was actually a four-way conversation facilitated by Don-Don Norris as well as Millie Myers and her daughter, Amy.
At that point, Petitioner’s trial counsel had the opportunity to object to the prosecutor’s proffer and/or to request that the Circuit Court voir dire Ms. Wise. The record shows that Petitioner’s trial counsel neither objected to the proffer nor requested a voir dire. Under these circumstances, I dissent from the holding that Petitioner is entitled to a new trial on the ground that Ms. Myers and Mr. Norris were also excluded from the courtroom during Ms. Wise’s testimony.
Judges BATTAGLIA and ADKINS have authorized me to state that they join in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774720. Public record. Not legal advice.