FIRST DIVISION
BARNES, P. J.,
MARKLE and HODGES, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules
July 22, 2026
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A26A1167. NEUGARD v. THE STATE.
HODGES, Judge.
Following a bench trial, a judge convicted Ronald C. Neugard of two counts
each of aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, and incest. Neugard appeals
following the denial of his motion for new trial. In his sole enumeration of error,
Neugard contends that he is entitled to a new trial because “the trial court failed to
enter an order detailing its reasons for clearing the courtroom when the victim
testified.” Finding no error, we affirm.
The relevant undisputed facts show that prior to trial the State asked the trial
court to clear the courtroom except for “necessary personnel” during the victim’s
testimony, who at the time of her testimony was 12 years of age. Neugard objected to the courtroom being cleared unless the “proper ... analysis” was performed. The
court noted Neugard’s objection, but declared that it would clear the courtroom.
When the State called the victim to testify, it requested that the courtroom be cleared
per the court’s prior ruling. Defense counsel renewed his objection and noted that two
of Neugard’s friends, who were there as spectators to support Neugard, the father of
the victim, and other courtroom personnel were in the courtroom at the time. The
trial court cleared the courtroom, but allowed the victim’s father, necessary
courtroom personnel, and a detective who had previously testified to remain in the
courtroom during the victim’s testimony.
Neugard argues on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court
failed to issue an order detailing its reasons for clearing the courtroom when the victim
testified. Specifically, Neugard asserts that prior to closing the courtroom, the trial
court was required to perform the analysis detailed by the United States Supreme
Court in Waller v. Ga., 467 US 39, 48(II)(B) (104 SCt 2210, 81 LE2d 31) (1984), and
make findings of fact showing it performed the analysis. Under that analysis, when a
party seeks full closure of an entire hearing,
the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding
interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader
2
than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider
reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make
findings adequate to support the closure.
Id. (addressing the full closure of a seven-day suppression hearing). We review a trial
court’s closure of the courtroom for an abuse of discretion, Spikes v. State, 353 Ga.
App. 454, 456(a) (838 SE2d 121) (2020), and we find no such abuse in this case.
Generally, a criminal defendant has the right to a public trial. See US Const.
Amend. VI and Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XI. However, this right is not
absolute; the right may be limited in rare instances where “the balance of interests
[are] struck with special care.” Spikes, 353 Ga. App. at 456(a) (citation and
punctuation omitted). One such interest requiring a partial court closure is the
protection of children. “Georgia statutory law mandates the partial closure of a
courtroom when a person under the age of 16 testifies in a criminal case concerning
a sexual offense, although the statute permits certain individuals, including the
defendant’s immediate family members, to remain in the courtroom.” Alexander v.
3
State, 313 Ga. 521, 525(2) (870 SE2d 729) (2022). Under OCGA § 17-8-54,1 when a
child under the age of 16 testifies concerning any sexual offense,
the court shall clear the courtroom of all persons except parties to the
cause and their immediate families or guardians, attorneys and their
secretaries, officers of the court, victim assistance coordinators, victims’
advocates, and such other victim assistance personnel as provided for by
Code Section 15-18-14.2, jurors, newspaper reporters or broadcasters,
and court reporters.
The rationale behind OCGA § 17-8-54 is “based upon a legislative determination that
there is a compelling state interest in protecting children while they are testifying
concerning a sex offense.” Spires v. State, 357 Ga. App. 440, 445(2)(a) (850 SE2d 854)
(2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). The statute provides no discretion for trial
courts when a victim of sexual violence under the age of 16 is testifying. It explicitly
mandates that the court “shall clear the courtroom” of all persons except those
designated in the statute. OCGA § 17-8-54.
Clearly OCGA § 17-8-54 applies in this case. The question is whether the trial
court was required to perform a Waller analysis before it cleared the courtroom. To
1
No issue regarding the constitutionality of OCGA § 17-8-54 is presented in this case.
4
answer this question, we must determine whether the trial court called for a partial or
full closure of the courtroom. Hicks v. State, 366 Ga. App. 599, 604(2) (884 SE2d 16)
(2023). “A partial closure occurs when some members of the public are permitted to
attend, while a total courtroom closure involves exclusion of all members of the
public.” Jackson v. State, 339 Ga. App. 313, 316(2)(a) (793 SE2d 201) (2016). Accord
Hicks, 366 Ga. App. at 604(2) (“A total courtroom closure occurs when no members
of the public are allowed to attend the trial, whereas a partial closure occurs when
some members of the public, such as the press, are permitted to attend.”). “This
distinction matters because when the courtroom is only partially closed to spectators,
the impact of the closure is not as great, and not as deserving of such a rigorous level
of constitutional scrutiny.” Jackson, 339 Ga. App. at 316(2)(a) (citation and
punctuation omitted).
Contrary to Neugard’s argument, this Court repeatedly has held that a partial
courtroom closure under OCGA § 17-8-54 does not violate a defendant’s
constitutional right to a public trial even when the closure is ordered without any casespecific findings. See, e.g., Hicks, 366 Ga. App. 604(2) (“[T]he partial closure of the
courtroom — which allowed members of the press, among others, to remain in the
5
courtroom — was permitted under OCGA § 17-8-54 and did not violate [the
defendant’s] constitutional right to a public trial.”); Spires, 357 Ga. App. at 445(2)(a)
(finding that a partial closure of the courtroom under OCGA § 17-8-54, which allowed
press and others to remain, did not violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a
public trial); Chamberlain v. State, 347 Ga. App. 775, 779(2) (819 SE2d 303) (2018)
(“The partial closure of the courtroom permitted under [OCGA § 17-8-54] does not
violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial.”) (citation and punctuation
omitted); Clark v. State, 309 Ga. App. 749, 751(2) (711 SE2d 339) (2011) (same).
Inherent in these decisions is the conclusion that a Waller analysis is not required for
partial closures under OCGA § 17-8-54 because the legislature has already determined
“that there is a compelling state interest in protecting children while they are
testifying concerning a sex offense” and “[b]y its terms, OCGA § 17-8-54 authorize[s]
the trial court to clear the courtroom” while minor victims testify. Tolbert v. State, 321
Ga. App. 637(1) (742 SE2d 152) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted). However,
if the trial court orders a more restrictive closure than the statute permits, a Waller
analysis would be necessary. See Spikes, 353 Ga. App. at 457-60(b) (reversing
conviction because the trial court ordered that the defendant’s immediate family
6
members leave the courtroom while the victim testified but did not perform a Waller
analysis); Jackson, 339 Ga. App. at 313, 316-21(2) (reversing conviction where the trial
court ordered a complete courtroom closure during the testimony of a victim who was
16 years old at the time of trial without performing a Waller analysis); Hunt v. State,
268 Ga. App. 568, 571(1) (602 SE2d 312) (2004) (recognizing that if the defendant had
objected, the trial court would have had an opportunity either to allow the defendant’s
immediate family and any press members to remain in the courtroom or engage in the
four-part Waller inquiry).
The facts in this case show that the trial court only partially closed the
courtroom, and it did not abuse its discretion in doing so under OCGA § 17-8-54. It
is undisputed that the victim was under the age of 16 when she took the stand at
Neugard’s trial to testify about sexual offenses. In addition, contrary to Neugard’s
contention, the trial court did not close the courtroom to “everyone.” The court
allowed the victim’s father, necessary personnel, and a detective to remain in the
courtroom, and it appears from the record that the only individuals actually asked to
leave the courtroom were two friends of Neugard and, possibly, members of the
community there to support Neugard. In fact, Neugard’s attorney told the victim
7
during her testimony that she was “very brave for coming here and telling all these
strangers this difficult thing.” There is no indication in the record that anyone who
self-identified under the categories listed in OCGA § 17-8-54 was excluded from the
courtroom or that anyone from those categories who wished to enter the courtroom
was not permitted to do so. See Chamberlain, 347 Ga. App. at 779-80(2) (finding that
a partial closure of the courtroom to any individual not falling under a category in
OCGA § 17-8-54 did not violate the defendant’s right to a public trial); Clark, 309 Ga.
App. at 751(2) (finding a partial closure of the courtroom did not exclude any category
of persons identified in OCGA § 17-8-54 and therefore did not violate the defendant’s
right to a public trial). The fact that Neugard’s friends and supporters were directed
to clear the courtroom does not alter this result since those individuals do not fall
under the list of exempted individuals in OCGA § 17-8-54. The statute is clear that
only immediate family are exempted, and supporters, even if close friends, do not fall
within this narrow group. See Chamberlain, 347 Ga. App. at 780(2) (holding that
“immediate family” as used in OCGA § 17-8-54 includes “a person’s parents,
spouse, children, and siblings[,]” not a defendant’s sister-in-law) (citation and
punctuation omitted).
8
Because Neugard has not shown that the trial court violated OCGA § 17-8-54
in any specific manner by identifying “any person or category of persons who [were]
wrongfully excluded under OCGA § 17-8-54[,]” the partial closure of the courtroom
under that statute did not violate his constitutional right to a public trial. Chamberlain,
347 Ga. App. at 780(2). Accord Clark, 309 Ga. App. at 751(2).
Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P. J., and Markle, J., concur.
9