State v. Trevor J. Ahrens

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
March 5, 2020
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2018AP2334-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2016CF59

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

TREVOR J. AHRENS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Jefferson County:
JENNIFER L. WESTON, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Blanchard, Graham and Nashold, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
No. 2018AP2334-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Trevor Ahrens appeals a judgment of conviction.
The dispositive issue is whether he forfeited his argument that the circuit court
violated his right to a public trial by excluding his mother from the courtroom.
We conclude that Ahrens forfeited the issue, and we affirm.

¶2 The circuit court excluded Ahrens’ mother from the trial in response
to a request by the State that was based on a telephone call between the mother
and Ahrens in which the mother encouraged Ahrens to act during the trial in a way
that could cause a mistrial.1 On appeal, Ahrens argues that her exclusion violated
his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

¶3 The State responds in part that Ahrens forfeited this issue by not
arguing against the State’s request to exclude his mother. When the court asked
Ahrens’ attorney what his position was on the State’s request, the attorney
responded: “I have no position on the legal aspect of that, legal qualifications for
that. Mr. Ahrens has informed me he does not wish to have his mother excluded
from the trial.”

¶4 Later in the hearing, after the court initially granted the State’s
request, the State directed the court’s attention more closely to applicable case
law. That case law provides a four-factor test of conditions that must be met to
justify closure of a criminal trial. State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶56, 315 Wis. 2d

1
We caution appellate counsel for the State about what appears to be a
mischaracterization of the record. The State’s brief asserts that it was concerned about the
telephone call between Ahrens and his mother because “the call showed” that she appeared to be
directing him to claim a conflict of interest with his attorney, “but only if it appeared he was
losing the trial.” In support of that assertion the State cites the summary of the call that was
submitted to the circuit court by the State. We do not see in that summary any material to support
the assertion that his mother spoke about Ahrens acting only if it appeared that he was losing the
trial.

2
No. 2018AP2334-CR

653, 761 N.W.2d 612. The State led the court through those factors, and the court
agreed that they had been met. Ahrens’ attorney did not speak during that
exchange.

¶5 In reply, Ahrens argues that the issue was not forfeited because the
circuit court considered and applied the above legal test. We conclude that the
issue was forfeited. Although it is true that the court applied that legal test, it did
so without adversarial input from Ahrens. One policy supporting the forfeiture
rule is that, by encouraging timely objections, it enables the circuit court to avoid
or correct any error with minimal disruption of the process, and without an appeal.
See id., ¶30. If Ahrens had made in circuit court the arguments he now makes on
appeal, the circuit court may have reached a different decision, or modified the
exclusion in some way.

¶6 Ahrens further argues that the decision to apply the forfeiture rule is
discretionary with this court, and that we should decide this issue even if Ahrens
forfeited it. In furtherance of the policies behind the forfeiture rule, we decline to
review the issue.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)5. (2017-18).

3