Rule 12-322 NMRA
Rule 12-322. Courtroom closure.
A. Courtroom proceedings open. All courtroom proceedings shall be open to the
public unless the courtroom is closed by an order of the appellate court entered under
this rule. An agreement of the parties to close the courtroom shall not constitute a
sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for courtroom closure. Unless otherwise
ordered by the court, the following persons may be present during a closed courtroom
proceeding: the parties and their attorneys, court employees and security personnel,
and victims and victims representatives as defined in the Victims of Crime Act, Section
31-26-3 NMSA 1978. This rule does not affect the court’s inherent authority to impose
reasonable time, place, and manner limitations on public access to the courtroom,
including reasonable limitations on broadcasting, televising, photographing, and
recording of court proceedings as set forth in Rule 23-107 NMRA.
B. Motion for courtroom closure. A motion for courtroom closure must advance
an interest that overrides the public’s interest in attending the proceeding.
(1)
Motion of the court. If the appellate court determines on the court’s own
motion that a courtroom proceeding should be closed, the court shall file and serve on
each party an order to show cause why the proceeding should not be closed.
(2)
Motion of a party, or other interested person or entity. A written
motion for courtroom closure shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days after
service of notice setting a matter for hearing or oral argument, unless upon good cause
shown the appellate court waives the time requirement.
(3)
Response. A party opposing a motion for courtroom closure or
responding to an order to show cause may file a written response within fifteen (15)
days after service of the motion or order to show cause, unless a different time period is
ordered by the appellate court. A reply is not permitted without leave of the court, which
may be granted upon a showing of good cause.
(4)
Response by non-party. Any member of the public may file a written
response to a motion for courtroom closure at any time before the hearing required
under Paragraph C of this rule.
(5)
Continuance. In the appellate court’s discretion or at the request of the
parties, the court may continue a courtroom proceeding to allow time to file written
responses.
C. Public hearing. Unless the appellate court denies a motion for courtroom
closure on the pleadings, the court shall hold a public hearing on any proposed
courtroom closure considered under Subparagraph (B)(1) or (B)(2) of this rule.
(1)
Notice of hearing to the public. Media organizations, persons, and
entities that have requested to receive notice of proposed courtroom closures shall be
given timely notice of the date, time, and place of any hearing under this paragraph. Any
member of the public shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the
hearing.
(2)
In camera review. Although the appellate court is required to hold a
public hearing on a motion for courtroom closure, this rule does not preclude the court
from holding part of a hearing in camera for the limited purpose of reviewing sensitive or
confidential information relevant to the motion. Any evidence or argument tendered to
the court for an in camera review that is not ordered to be disclosed shall be placed
under seal and preserved for appellate review. The record of the in camera hearing
shall not be revealed without an order of the court.
D. Order for courtroom closure. An order for courtroom closure shall be in writing,
shall articulate the overriding interest being protected, and shall specify the appellate
court’s findings underlying the order. The court may order the exclusion of the public
from all or part of a courtroom proceeding only if
(1)
the court concludes that such order is necessary to preserve an overriding
interest that is likely to be prejudiced if the courtroom is not closed;
(2)
the order for courtroom closure is narrowly tailored to protect the
overriding interest; and
(3)
the court has considered reasonable alternatives to courtroom closure.