State v. Frawley ( 2014 )

FILE
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON
SEP 2 5 2014
DATE_ _ _ _.
,.., ....
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 80727-2
Petitioner, ) (consolidated with 86513-2)
)
v. ) EnBanc
) .
BRIAN WILLIAM FRAWLEY, )
)
Respondent. )
·)
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Respondent, }
)
v. )
)
RONALD EUGENE APPLEGATE, )
)
Petitioner. )
) Filed SEP 2 5 2014
C. JOHNSON, I.-These consolidated criminal cases involve whether a
defendant can waive his right to a public trial under article I, section 22 and/or
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
article I, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution. In State v. Frawley, 140
Wash. App. 713, 167 P.3d 593 (2007), the Court of Appeals reversed Brian
Frawley's conviction for first degree felony murder because the trial court closed
the courtroom without performing a Bone-Club 1 analysis. In State v. Applegate,
163 Wash. App. 460, 259 P.3d 311 (2011), the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's
determination of aggravating factors supporting Ronald Applegate's exceptional
sentence for his 2005 conviction for rape of a child because the defendant waived
his public trial right. In both cases, because the State has not established waiver,
we affirm Frawley and should reverse Applegate.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
a. State v. Frawley
In 2004, Brian Frawley was charged with first degree felony murder. At
trial, voir dire was divided into two phases: individual and general voir dire. At the
individual portion of voir dire, some jurors were to be questioned in the judge's
chambers regarding their answers on the juror questionnaire. Before this occurred,
the court engaged in an extensive colloquy concerning Frawley's right to be
present for the individual voir dire and he waived this right to be present. The court
1
State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
2
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
and counsel for both sides then interviewed 35 prospective jurors in chambers.
Eleven prospective jurors were stricken for cause.
For the general voir dire, the court proposed closing the courtroom to the
public out of concern that the space would not be large enough for both the venire
and the public. 2 The court inquired into whether Frawley would waive his right to
have the public present and eventually engaged Frawley in another extensive
colloquy where the trial judge concluded that Frawley waived his right to have the
public present during general voir dire. The jury was selected and eventually
convicted Frawley of first degree felony murder.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals issued a split decision in which it held that
(1) the trial court improperly closed the courtroom for the individual voir dire
without performing a Bone-Club analysis and (2) Frawley did not waive his right
to have the public present during individual voir dire. As a result, the Court of
Appeals reversed Frawley's conviction. Frawley, 140 Wash. App. 713. The State
petitioned this court for review, and consideration of the petition was deferred
pending resolution of State v. Strode, 167 Wash. 2d 222, 217 P .3d 310 (2009), and
State v. Momah, 167 Wash. 2d 140, 217 P.3d 321 (2009), and then again pending
resolution of State v. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d 1, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012). This court then
2
The court had addressed the entire venire the day before without excluding the public by
moving across the hall to a larger courtroom.
3
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
granted the petition for review. State v. Frawley, 17 6 Wash. 2d 1030, 299 P .3d 19
(2013).
b. State v. Applegate
In 1996, the State charged Ronald Applegate with second degree rape of a
child. Applegate fled but was eventually arrested in 2004. He was convicted with
three aggravating factors supporting an exceptional sentence, but his sentence was
overturned on appeal and remanded for a new trial on the aggravating
circumstances only.
Prior to voir dire at the new trial, the trial judge addressed the courtroom,
asking if either party or any member of the public present in the courtroom3 would
object if individual potential jurors who wanted to could discuss issues raised in
the juror questionnaire in a "less open setting." Applegate Report of Proceedings
(RP) (Aug. 10, 2009) at 26. Defense counsel stated that such a determination was
entirely within the court's discretion, but the State indicated that the court needed
to address whether Applegate himself objected because "[t]he public would be
excluded under the circumstances." RP (Aug. 10, 2009) at 26. The court
responded, "Under Momah, as I recall, it didn't even state that the factors need to
be specifically addressed, because it still is a trial of record. We can still address
3
The State indicated that there was one member of the public present in the courtroom. It
does not appear that this individual voiced an objection.
4
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
those factors[ 4J at another time." RP (Aug. 10, 2009) at 27. The discussion was then
tabled until the court could address the entire jury pool later that afternoon.
After voir dire had started, the court identified one juror likely to be
questioned privately based on the questionnaire. 5 The court addressed the
courtroom again, asking if any member of the jury pool or public had any objection
to the court speaking with the juror in chambers. The court explained, "It would be
a public proceeding. Any member of the public that is available to come in [it] will
have the outer door open for that purpose." 6 RP (Aug. 10, 2009) at 118. The court
again asked if there were any objections, but the State voiced concern that
Applegate had yet to state whether he objected. The court stated, "[I]n terms of I
believe the five factors set forth[,] referred to as the [Bone-Club] factors[,] I
believe those have been met." RP (Aug. 10, 2009) at 119. The court then asked if
Applegate had any objections. Initially, Applegate's attorney stated that he had no
objection, but the court sought clarification that Applegate himself rather than just
4
The court appeared to be referring to the five factors set out in Bone-Club.
5
Four jurors wished to speak privately regarding the questionnaire, but as the court
indicated, three were near the end of the panel and unlikely to be selected. The remaining juror
was near the beginning of the panel and was more likely to be selected.
6
The court stated multiple times throughout this discussion and at the in-chambers
questioning of the juror that the individual questioning had to and did remain a public
proceeding. During the in-chambers questioning, the judge stated for the record, "The inner and
outer door to my chambers are open. The courtroom door is closed, but this must remain a public
proceeding." RP (Aug. 10, 2009) at 120.
5
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
his counsel did not object Defense counsel then had a brief sidebar with Applegate
and returned on the record to state, "I have talked it over with Mr. Applegate. He
has no objection ... to going back into chambers and asking these questions
without the public .hearing." RP (Aug. 10, 2009) at 119. The juror was briefly
.
questioned in chambers by both parties, and then all returned to the courtroom to
continue voir dire. The juror was impaneled, and the jury eventually returned a
special verdict finding each aggravating factor supporting an exceptional sentence
of 120 months.·
The Court of Appeals affirmed Applegate's exceptional sentence. Applegate,
163 Wash. App. 460. Applegate then sought review from this court, alleging multiple
errors. This court granted review on the public trial issue only and requested
additional briefing as to whether any violation of Applegate's public trial right was
de minimis. State v. Applegate, 176 Wash. 2d 1032, 299 P.3d 19 (2013). The
. . ' .
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Allied Daily Newspapers of
Washington, Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, and Washington
Coalition for Open Government joined in filing a brief as amici curiae in both
cases.
6
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
ANALYSIS
a. Bone-ClubAnalysis
In Wise and State v. Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d 29, 288 P.3d 1126 (2012), this
court solidified the role of the public trial right in the context of the voir dire phase
of a trial. The public trial right is found in two sections of the Washington
constitution: article I, section 22, which guarantees a criminal defendant a right to a
"public trial by an impartial jury," and article I, section 10, which guarantees that
'lj]ustice in all cases shall be administered openly." The public trial right applies
to jury selection, including the individual questioning of prospective jurors, Wise,
176 Wash. 2d at 11, but the right is not absolute, Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d at 259. A
trial court may question potential jurors individually outside of the public's
presence-·-thereby closing the courtroom-but only after considering the five
Bone·-Club factors 7 on the record. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 13. Closure of the courtroom
without this analysis is a structural error for which a new trial is the only remedy.
Wise, 176 Wn.2dat 15.
7. These factors are (l) the proponent of closure must show a compelling interest, and
where that need is based on a right other than an accused's right to a fair trial, the proponent must
sha;w a '"serious and imminent threat'" to that right; (2) anyone present when the closure motion
is made must be given an opportunity to object to the closure; (3) the proposed method for
curtailing open access mqst be the least restrictive means available for protecting the threatened
interests; (4) the court:ri:mst weigh the competing interests of the proponent of closure and the
public; and (5) the order must be no broader than necessary in application or duration. Bone-
Club, 128 Wash. 2d at 258·59 (quoting Allied Daily Newspapers of Wash. v. Eikenberry, 121
Wn.2d 205,210, 848 P.2d 1258 (1993)).
7
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
In fiVise, the trial court initiated in-chambers questioning of 10 jurors but did
. ''
no~. analyze the Bone-Club faCtors on the record. We reversed Wise's conviction,
holding that the trial court violated his right to a publk trial by implementing a
closure without first engaging in a Bone-Club analysis.
s·imilar to T558 U.S. 209, 215, 130 S. Ct. 721, 175 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2010). Weighing
this eompelling interest against competing interests ensures that trial courts give
due ``onsideration to the interests furthered by maintaining an open proceeding,
such as fostering public confidence in the system and the appearance of fairness.
Considering altematives to closure is imperative-even when neither party has
8
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
offered ~n alternative-because "[t]he process of juror selection is itself a matter of
importance, not simply to the adversaries but to the criminal justice system.''
Presley, 558 U.S. at 214 (alteration in original) (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v.
Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 505, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984)). In
light of the important purpose served by each factor, it would be counterintuitive to
hold that a trial judge's obligation to articulate and assess every Bone-Club factor
on the record is excused by a single statement that he believed that the factors
"ha[d] been met." RP (Aug. 10, 2009) at 119.
In both cases, the in-chambers questioning of jurors constituted a closure of
the courtroom under Wise, 176 Wash. 2d 1. 8 In neither case did the trial court analyze
each Bone-Club factor on the record prior to instituting the closure. Both closures,
therefore, were a violation of each defendant's public trial right.
b. Affirmative Waiver
In both cases, the State argues that the defendant affirmatively waived his
public trial right and therefore cannot challenge the closure. The State in Applegate
further argues that because Applegate affirmatively waived his right to a public
8
There may be an argument that no closure occurred in Applegate because of the trial
judge's statements on the record that the in-chambers questioning would be a "public
proceeding" and that any member of the public could view the proceeding. RP (Aug. 10, 2009)
at 118. Because the State in Applegate did not assert this argument, we decline to address the
issue.
9
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
trial and does not have standing to assert a violation of the public's right to a public
trial, he has no claim to assert.
A "waiver" is an "intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known
right or privilege." Jqhnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed.
1461 ( 193 8). Courts "indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of
fundamental rights," City of Bellevue v. Acrey, 103 Wash. 2d 203, 207, 691 P .2d 957
(1984) (citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680
(1942)), and the prosecution bears the burden of establishing a valid waiver, State
v. Wicke, 91 Wash. 2d 638, 645, 591 P.2d 452 (1979). In general, the waiver of a
constitutional right must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, State v.
Thomas, 128 Wash. 2d 553, 558, 910 P.2d 475 (1996), but waivers of different
constitutional rights meet this standard in different ways. Compare Thomas, 128
Wash. 2d at 559 ("As with the right to self-representation, the right not to testify, and
the right to confront witnesses, the judge may assume a !mowing waiver of the
right from the defendant's conduct."), with City of Seattle v. Williams, 101 Wash. 2d
445,452, 680 P.2d 1051 (1984) (lmowing waiver requires defendant be informed
of his constitutional right to a jury trial, and if the right is waived, he must be
afforded a certain number of days in which to change his mind); State v. Stegall,
10
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
124 Wash. 2d 719, 725, 881 P.2d 979 (1994) ("[T]he inquiry by the court will differ
depending on the nature of the constitutional right at issue.").
In Strode, this court suggested that because a defendant's article I, section 22
public trial right is part of the same constitutional provision as the defendant's right
to a jury trial, it should be subject only to waiver in the same manner. Strode, 167
Wash. 2d at 229 n.3. A waiver of the right to a jury trial does not require a colloquy
or on-the-record advice as to the consequences of a waiver, but it does require an
affirmative and unequivocal personal expression of waiver from the defendant.
Stegall, 124 Wash. 2d at 725 (citing Acrey, 103 Wash. 2d 203 at 207-08). Our court
rules have formalized this process by requiring a written waiver from the
defendant. CrR 6.1 (a) ("Cases required to be tried by jury shall be so tried unless
the defendant files a written waiver of a jury trial, and has consent of the court.").
Therefore, a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the public trial right
would require, at the very least, a written waiver signed by the defendant expressly
acknowledging and waiving the right. No such procedure was followed in these
cases, and the record in these cases does not reveal an equivalent colloquy that
satisfies this standard.
In Frawley's case, no dispute exists that Frawley was advised of his right to
be present during individual voir dire. The question then becomes if and how a
11
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
waiver of his right to be present affects his right to have the public present. The
State argues that the underlying purpose of questioning individual jurors-to
further juror candor, thus promoting the defendant's right to an impartial jury-
would be defeated if Frawley's waiver of his right to be present did not also
implicitly waive his right to have the public present. We disagree.
In In re Personal Restraint of Morris, 176 Wash. 2d 157, 288 P.3d 1140
(2012), we discussed and resolved this argument. In that case, similar to what
occurred in Frawley, the defendant waived his presence for the in-chambers
questioning of individual jurors in order to promote juror candor. Our plurality
opinion held that waiver of the right to be present should not be conflated with
waiver of the right to a public trial because waiver of the former does not
necessarily imply knowledge ofthe latter. We found no discussion of the
defendant's public trial right before the closure and thus no waiver of the public
trial right.
In Frawley's case, because the trial court made no mention of Frawley's
public trial right before the individual juror questioning-only his right to be
present---Morris controls. We cannot equate a waiver of the right to be present
12
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
with a waiver of the right to a public trial; we require an independent knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the public trial right. 9
The record in Applegate also does not support finding a knowing and
intelligent waiver. Although defense counsel, upon request from the trial judge,
consulted with Applegate before stating that Applegate had no objection to in-
chambers juror questioning, no indication was given that Applegate was informed
of his right to a public trial or any consequences associated with waiving that right.
Thus, neither Frawley nor Applegate made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
waiver of their right to a public trial provided by article I, section 22.
While it may be tn1e that a closure should not be subject to challenge on
appeal when there is a valid affirmative waiver of a defendant's article I, section 22
public trial rights, it is necessary to emphasize that the doctrine of affirmative
waiver is inconsistent with the Bone-Club analysis. This is the case because the
Bone-Club analysis already incorporates a waiver analysis as the second factor,
which explicitly compels the trial court to ask if anyone objects to the closure.
Allowing a closure with only an affirmative waiver by the defendant-and
no Bone-Club analysis-negates the very purpose of requiring a Bone-Club
9
Because we find no waiver as to the individual portion of voir dire, we need not assess
whether the trial court's colloquy with Frawley concerning general voir dire could have
constituted waiver.
13
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
analysis, which is to ensure that the trial court "resist a closure ... except under the
most unusual circumstances." Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d at 259. We confine closures
to the "most unusual circumstances" in order to protect both the defendant's and
the public's right to.an open trial. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 16 (citing State v.
Easterling, 157 Wash. 2d 167, 174-75, 137 P.3d 825 (2006)). If a trial court allows a
closure without applying the Bone-Club factors-i.e., without finding a compelling
interest justifying the closure or considering alternatives such that the closure is the
least restrictive means of protecting that compelling interest-the public's right to
a public proceeding is implicated and remains implicated even where a defendant
could be found to have knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his or her
right to have the public present. Because a courtroom closure implicates both the
public's interest in openness under article I, section 10 and the defendant's
interests under article I, section 22, a constitutional violation exists absent proper
justification for the closure (as required by Bone-Club) even though we have
recognized that under some circumstances, a new trial is not always required to
remedy that constitutional violation.
Further, the public does not waive its right to have "OJustice ...
administered openly," WASH. CONST. art. I, section 10, simply because no member
of the public objected to the closure. "The public has a right to be present whether
14
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
or not any party has asserted the right." Presley, 558 U.S. at 214. Allowing a
criminal defendant to affirmatively waive his public trial rights could now allow a
defendant to consent to locking the courtroom door for the entirety of his criminal
trial. Just because a valid affirmative waiver renders a closure free from challenge
on appeal should not mean that the error does not occur to the detriment of others.
c. Contemporaneous Objection
The State in Frawley also argues that under the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, a party can claim an error for the first time on review only if the error is
"manifest error affecting a constitutional right." RAP 2.5(a)(3). Such a rule,
however, would require this court to overrule many of our cases holding that a
party may claim a public trial right error for the first time on appeal. See Paumier,
176 Wash. 2d at 36-37; Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 15; Easterling, 157 Wash. 2d at 173 n.2.
This court will overrule an established rule only if a party can show that the rule is
incorrect and harmful. City ofFederal Way v. Koenig, 167 Wash. 2d 341, 346-47, 217
P.3d 1172 (2009) (quoting Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wash. 2d 138, 147,94 P.3d
930 (2004)). The State has made no showing that the rule in Wise, Paumier,
Easterling, and other cases is incorrect or harmful.
Our public trial jurisprudence has made clear that proceedings to which the
public trial right attaches must be kept open and public. The exception to this rule
15
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
allows courts to institute closures only when necessary, on a case-by-case basis,
after performing the Bone-Club analysis. Requiring a contemporaneous objection
in order to preserve a public trial error for review would have the opposite effect.
Under such a rule, a trial court could permit a closure whenever the defendant did
not object, except for situations in which the closure was "manifest" error, as
defined by a common law approach. In practice, such a rule would create a
perception of trial proceedings that could be presumptively closed, with open
proceedings serving as the exception to the rule. This is inconsistent with our
public trial rights jurisprudence, and we decline to overrule the long-standing rule
that public trial rights violations may be asserted for the first time on appeal.
d. De Minimis
Lastly, Frawley and Applegate argue that any violation of their public trial
right was not de minimis. Specifically, they point out that only federal cases have
recognized a de minimis analysis for public trial rights violations. Analyzing the
Gunwall 10 factors, Applegate argues that the Washington public trial right is
broader and more protective than the federal public trial right.
A Gunwall analysis, however, is unnecessary here. While we have relied
upon and incorporated various aspects of federal law in developing our public trial
10
State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash. 2d 54, 720 P .3d 808 (1986).
16
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
right jurisprudence, we are solely within the realm of interpreting the state
constitution. We do not require Gunwall to take us any further. Looking to
Washington law, even if the brief in-chambers questioning of one juror could
constitute a de minimis violation of a defendant's public trial right, such a
conclusion would find no place in our public trial rights case law. We have
considered a de minimis argument in the context of public trial rights in past cases,
and in Easterling, 157 Wash. 2d at 180, we expressly rejected a de minimis approach
as advocated for in the dissenting opinion. We have not deviated from this holding.
Thus, in both cases here, the closures were not de minimis.
CONCLUSION
An open and public trial serves as a "core safeguard in our system of
justice," providing accountability and transparency and allowing the "public to see,
firsthand, justice done in its communities." Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 5, 6. People not
actually attending trials can be confident that courts are observing standards of
fairness, knowing that because anyone is free to attend, established procedures are
being followed and deviations will become known. Press-Enter. Co., 464 U.S. at
508. Closures of the courtroom should be instituted only in the rarest of
circumstances, as dictated by an on-the-record analysis of the Bone-Club factors.
17
State v. Frawley, 80727-2 (consol. with 86513-2)
We affirm the Court of Appeals in Frawley and should reverse in Applegate, and
we should remand both cases for further proceedings.
WE CONCUR:
18
State v. Frawley (Brian W.); State v. Applegate (Ronald E.)
80727-2
Stephens, J. (concurring)-The lead opinion correctly recognizes that the
in-chambers voir dire in these cases was a closure that violated Brian Frawley's
and Ronald Applegate's public trial rights. And, it correctly concludes that neither
defendant waived his right to challenge the closure under our constitutional waiver
standard. I therefore concur in the lead opinion's holding that "neither Frawley nor
Applegate made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of their right to a
public trial provided by article I, section 22." Lead opinion at 13.
Unfortunately, the lead opinion clouds the clarity of this holding by going on
to suggest that the very waiver analysis it applies is inconsistent with our Bone-
Club1 analysis. I respectfully disagree. Whether a defendant waives his right to
assert a constitutional error presents a different question from whether such error
occurs; no error occurs when a court validly closes a proceeding under the Bone-
Club analysis. But, even in the absence of a full Bone-Club analysis, a defendant
is entitled to waive his right to an open court, if the waiver meets the constitutional
1 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
State v. Frawley (Brian W.); State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), 80727-2
(Stephens, J., concurring)
standard for waiver. There is nothing so unique about the public trial right under
article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution or the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution that makes it categorically unwaivable. On this score, I
agree with much of the analysis set forth in Justice Gordon McCloud's
concurrence/dissent. I cannot join her opinion, however, because the waivers
presented in both of these cases failed to meet the constitutional waiver standard.
There can be little doubt as to Mr. Frawley's case. Regardless of whether
Mr. Frawley may have ultimately waived his right to a public trial on the record,
this occurred after the court had conducted individual voir dire in chambers and
applied only to remaining portions of voir dire. Compare 1 Verbatim Report of
Proceedings (VRP) (Nov. 28, 2005) at 67-68 (waiving only right to presence for
individual voir dire in chambers), with 6 VRP (Feb. 14, 2006) at 864-67 (waiving
public trial right for remainder of voir dire). Mr. Applegate's case is less clear. He
indicated, through counsel, that he had no objection to in chambers voir dire, but
the discussion that preceded the conversation between the court and counsel
concerning Applegate's waiver was confused at best and misstated the law at
worst.
Critically, the judge indicated that the voir dire of jurors in chambers would
be public:
Is there any member of the jury panel or any member of the public who is
present who has an objection to our speaking with juror No.2 I guess in my
-2-
State v. Frawley (Brian W.); State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), 80727-2
(Stephens, J., concurring)
office? It would be a public proceeding. Any member of the public that is
available to come in I will have the outer door open for that purpose.
Appelgate Report of Proceedings (Aug. 10, 2009) at 118. Applegate's counsel and
the judge then had the following exchange:
THE COURT: Mr. Nelson, do you or your client have any objection
to--
MR. NELSON: No.
THE COURT: Are you speaking for yourself and for your client?
MR. NELSON: I'm not speaking for my client. I'm speaking for
myself as his counsel. I don't know if he heard.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we have addressed it previously.
I'll let you step into my office to discuss it with him.
MR. NELSON: Could I first have a side bar with your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Side bar.)
MR. NELSON: Thank you, your Honor. For the record, I have
talked it over with Mr. Applegate. He has no objection and I have no
objection to going back into chambers and asldng these questions without
the public hearing.
THE COURT: It must remain a public proceeding. So I will open
the doors to my office.
Id. at 119-20.
As the lead opinion notes, the State does not argue that the in-chambers voir
dire was actually a public proceeding. Lead opinion at 9 n.8. Nor would this be
consistent with our precedent. State v. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d 1, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012);
State v. Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d 29, 288 P.3d 1126 (2012). Nonetheless, the trial
court's insistence that the in-chambers proceeding was not a closure strongly
suggested that no public trial right was even implicated. Based on this advisement,
I find it impossible to conclude that Applegate made a "knowing" and "intelligent"
decision to "waive" his right.
-3-
State v. Frawley (Brian W.); State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), 80727-2
(Stephens, J., concurring)
I think it is important to recogmze that public trial rights, like other
important trial rights, are waivable. The presence or absence of a Bone-Club
analysis is not determinative of whether a defendant will be allowed to challenge a
violation of article I, section 22. It is equally important to recognize that a waiver
is valid only when knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and this must be
clear in the record. With these observations, I wholly agree with the lead opinion's
conclusion that neither Frawley nor Applegate waived his public trial right.
-4-
State v. Frawley (Brian W); State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), 80727-2
-5-
State v. Frawley (Brian W.)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
No. 80727-2
GORDON McCLOUD, J. (concurring m part and dissenting in
part)-I completely agree with the lead opinion that the in-chambers voir
dire in both Frawley and Applegate constituted courtroom closures; the
closures in both cases occurred without the explicit, on-the-record five-
factor inquiry and balancing that the state constitution and our cases require;
this constitutional error can be raised for the first time on appeal; and, the
remedy for a reviewable error of this sort is reversal without any additional
showing of prejudice to the outcome of the case. I also agree with the lead
opinion that a defendant's waiver of this right cannot be presumed from a
silent record, from a waiver of some other right, or from the defendant's
decision to participate in a proceeding once the court has closed it to the
public and the defendant has to make the best of the situation.
1
State v. Frawley (Brian W.)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
I write separately because I believe that a criminal defendant has the
ability to affirmatively waive the right to raise the issue of courtroom closure
on appeal or collateral challenge. The lead opinion acknowledges that this is
a theoretical possibility, but says that it essentially requires a full Bone-Club 1
analysis. Lead opinion at 13 ("While it may be true that a closure should be
subject to challenge on appeal when there is a valid affirmative waiver of a
defendant's article I, section 22 public trial rights, it is necessary to
emphasize that the doctrine of affirmative waiver is inconsistent with the
Bone-Club analysis. This is the case because the Bone-Club analysis already
incorporates a waiver analysis as the second factor, which explicitly compels
the trial court to ask if anyone objects to the closure.").
I respectfully disagree. I think the defendant can waive the right to an
open court, if the waiver meets the constitutional standard for waiver. I
believe that Applegate's waiver met that standard and Frawley's did not. I
therefore concur in the lead opinion's decision in Frawley but dissent from
its decision in Applegate.
1
State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
2
State v. Frawley (Brian W)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
ANALYSIS
The lead opinion essentially rules that a criminal defendant's right to
an open courtroom is nonwaivable without a Bone-Club analysis. As
discussed immediately above, the lead opinion states that accepting a waiver
is completely inconsistent with Bone-Club: "This is ... because the Bone-
Club analysis already incorporates a waiver analysis as the second factor,
which explicitly compels the trial court to ask if anyone objects to the
closure." Lead opinion at 13. "Allowing a closure with only an affirmative
waiver by the defendant-and no Bone-Club analysis-also negates the very
purpose of requiring a Bone-Club analysis .... " Lead opinion at 13-14.
It is certainly true that some constitutional rights are nonwaivable.
For example, there are good systemic, as well as individual, reasons for the
rule that a criminal defendant cannot waive the right to receive a sentence
free from taint by a '"constitutionally impermissible factor such as race."'
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting United
States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also In re Pers.
Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wash. 2d 861, 874, 50 P.3d 618 (2002) ("in general
a defendant cannot waive a challenge to a miscalculated offender score").
3
State v. Frawley (Brian W)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Similarly, a criminal defendant cannot force a waiver of the constitutional
right to conflict-free counsel on the court. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S.
153, 154, 108 S. Ct. 1692, 100 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1988); State v. Rooks, 130
Wash. App. 787, 799-800, 125 P.3d 192 (2005). And a criminal defendant
cannot waive the right to appeal or collaterally challenge his conviction on
the ground of ineffective assistance. Jones v. United States, 167 F.3d 1142,
1145 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.
1993) (citing Marin, 961 F.2d at 496). Further, a criminal defendant cannot
waive the right to competency or to sentencing within the statutory
maximum authorized by the legislature. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375,
384, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966) (defendant whose competence is
subject to doubt cannot be deemed to have waived right to competency
hearing (citing Taylor v. United States, 282 F.2d 16, 23 (8th Cir. 1980));
Marin, 961 F .2d at 496 (right to be sentenced within statutory maximum is
nonwaivable ). Both the defendant and the criminal justice system benefit
from treating these protections as nonwaivable.
The criminal defendant's right to an open courtroom is just as
constitutional, but it is different. All the jurisdictions of which I am aware
4
State v. Frawley (Brian W.)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
treat it as a waivable right. E.g., Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 35, 85
S. Ct. 783, 13 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1965); 2 People v. Lang, 49 Cal. 3d 991, 782
P.2d 627, 651, 264 Cal. Rptr. 386 (1989) (citing People v. Cash, 52 Cal. 2d
841, 846, 345 P.2d 462 (1959)); People v. Marathon, 97 A.D.2d 650, 650,
469 N.Y.S.2d 178 (1983); Commonwealth v. Williams, 379 Mass. 874, 401
N.E.2d 376, 378 (1980); Wright v. State, 340 So. 2d 74, 79-80 (Ala. 1976).
All of our cases have treated the public trial right as a waivable right,
also. But they diverge on how it can be waived.
Most of our cases hold that a mere failure to object to a closure does
not waive the right to a public trial. In Bone-Club itself, for example, this
court rejected the State's argument that the defendant waived his right to an
open court by failing to object to closure, explaining that "an opportunity to
object has no 'practical meaning' unless the court informs the potential
objectors of the nature of the asserted interests." Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d at
261 (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash. 2d 30, 39, 640 P.2d 716
(1982)). The court therefore concluded, "The summary closure thus
2
To be sure, though, they differ about what it takes to waive the right.
Compare Walton v. Briley, 361 F.3d 431, 434 (7th Cir. 2004) (requiring knowing
and voluntary waiver), with Martineau v. Perrin, 601 F.2d 1196, 1200 (1st Cir.
1979) (failure to object may constitute waiver where the defendant is, on the
record, made aware of his rights and declines to object).
5
State v. Frawley (Brian W.)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
deprived Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to object." I d. (citing
Ishikawa, 97 Wash. 2d at 39).
We came to a similar conclusion in State v. Easterling, 157 Wash. 2d
167, 137 P.3d 825 (2006). In response to the State's argument that
Easterling had waived his right by failing to object, we ruled that "under the
Bone-Club criteria, the burden is placed upon the trial court to seek the
defendant's objection to the courtroom closure." Id. at 176 n.8. Because the
"record . . . . show[ ed] that the trial court did not affirmatively provide
Easterling with such an opportunity," the court concluded that Easterling did
not waive his public trial right by silence. Id.
We took the same approach in State v. Strode, 167 Wash. 2d 222, 217
P.3d 310 (2009). The lead opinion in that case, signed by four justices,
stated, "It seems reasonable ... that the right to a public trial can be waived
only in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner." I d. at 229 n.3 (citing
City of Bellevue v. Acrey, 103 Wash. 2d 203, 207-08, 691 P.2d 957 (1984)).
The concurrence, signed by two justices, stated that "[i]f the lead opinion
means that only an on-the-record colloquy showing such a waiver will
suffice, I disagree. Waiver of many important constitutional rights may
6
State v. Frawley (Brian W)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
occur without an on-the-record colloquy." Id. at 235 (Fairhurst, J.,
concurring). The concurrence concludes, however, that Strode did not waive
his public trial right because "[t]he record does not show a knowing waiver
of the right to a public trial." ld.
Finally, in Morris, we again rejected the State's waiver-by-silence
argument: "[A] defendant must have knowledge of a right to waive it. Here,
there was no discussion of Morris's public trial right before the closure.
Thus, we do not find that Morris waived his right to a public trial." In re
Pers. Restraint of Morris, 176 Wash. 2d 157, 167, 288 P.3d 1140 (2012)
(citation omitted) (citing State v. Duckett, 141 Wash. App. 797, 806-07, 173
P.3d 948 (2007)).
Bone-Club thus requires a "meaningful opportunity to object" before
waiver will be inferred. Easterling and Morris do too. Strode clarifies that
the waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent but adopts no
formula for ensuring that standard is met; the concurring justices
aclmowledge that it can be met without the same type of "on-the-record
colloquy" that waiver of certain other rights (like the right to counsel)
reqmres.
7
State v. Frawley (Brian W.)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Applying those precedents here, Applegate got the right to object to
courtroom closure, got to "talk[] it over" with his own (presumptively
effective) lawyer, and provided his answer, through counsel, that he did not
object. 3 Frawley did not have such an opportunity. 4
3
After discussing the public trial right and the parties' desire to have a
private proceeding in chambers, Applegate's counsel and the judge had the
following exchange:
COURT: Mr. Nelson, do you or your client have any
objection to --
MR. NELSON: No.
COURT: Are you speaking for yourself and for your client?
MR. NELSON: I'm not speaking for my client. I'm speaking
for myself as his counsel. I don't know if he heard.
COURT: All right. Well, we have addressed it previously.
I'll let you step into my office to discuss it with him.
MR. NELSON: Could I first have a side bar with your
Honor?
COURT: Yes.
(Side bar.)
MR. NELSON: Thank you, your Honor. For the record, I
have talked it over with Mr. Applegate. He has no objection and I
have no objection to going back into chambers and asking these
questions without the public hearing.
Applegate Report of Proceedings (Aug. 10, 2009) at 119.
8
State v. Frawley (Brian W)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
There are good reasons to stick with our precedent holding that the
criminal defendant can waive this right and that he or she can do it without
the court going through the five-factor Bone-Club analysis. The first reason
is based in logic: Bone-Club is a means of protecting the right to an open
court; waiver is a means of relinquishing the defendant's ability to raise an
error concerning the right post-conviction. The second reason is based in
policy: a criminal defendant might conclude that temporary closure is more
beneficial to his case, or his safety, even if he cannot prove it. For example,
a defendant might seek privacy to disclose the fact, and details, of his or her
own agreement to cooperate with the government-even if he or she can't
prove the certainty of negative consequences that would compel closure
under Bone-Club.
What does it take for a criminal defendant to waive the right to raise a
courtroom closure on appeal or in a collateral challenge? The lead opinion
analogizes the right to an open courtroom to the right to a jury (as opposed
to a bench) trial and says that the former can be waived in the same manner
4Frawley waived his right to a public trial on the record, but only after the
court had conducted individual voir dire in chambers. Compare 1 Verbatim
Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Nov. 28, 2005) at 67-68 (waiving only right to
presence for individual voir dire in chambers), with 6 VRP (Feb. 14, 2006) at 864-
67 (waiving public trial right for remainder of voir dire).
9
State v. Frawley (Brian W)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
as the latter. The lead opinion relies on Strode for this analogy. Lead
opinion at 11.
I agree that the analogy is apt and workable. But I disagree with the
lead opinion's description of how to properly waive both of those rights.
The lead opinion states that a defendant cannot waive jury without doing so
personally, on the record, in writing or following an on-the-record
advisement of rights. Lead opinion at 11 ("a ... waiver of the public trial
right would require, at the very least, a written waiver signed by the
defendant expressly acknowledging and waiving the right" or "an equivalent
colloquy that satisfies this standard").
It is true that a criminal defendant cannot waive a jury trial by silence
or inaction. "[W]e have refused to infer a waiver when the record shows
less than an affirmative, unequivocal waiver by defendant." Acrey, 103
Wash. 2d at 207. We have, however, said different things about whether the
defendant must personally say this to the judge in open court or if the lawyer
can waive the right when the circumstances show that the defendant is
adopting the lawyer's statements about the defendant's intent. Compare
State v. Wicke, 91 Wash. 2d 638, 644-45, 591 P.2d 452 (1979) (no effective
10
State v. Frawley (Brian W)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
waiver of jury trial where no written waiver and attorney orally waives jury
trial right in open court; court suggests that record must affirmatively show
attorney was authorized to waive right on defendant's behalf), and City of
Seattle v. Crumrine, 98 Wash. 2d 62, 653 P.2d 605 (1982) (no written or oral
waiver by defendant on the record; conviction reversed), and City of Seattle
v. Williams, 101 Wash. 2d 445, 452, 680 P.2d 1051 (1984) (conditional jury
trial waiver at arraignment must be done by defendant in writing), with State
v. Stegall, 124 Wash. 2d 719, 729, 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (waiver of right to 12-
person jury valid only if record shows "( 1) a personal statement from the
defendant expressly agreeing to the waiver, or (2) an indication that the trial
judge or defense counsel has discussed the issue with the defendant prior to
the attorney's own waiver" (emphasis added)).
As this list of cases shows, our most recent decision on this issue
holds that a statement on the record by defense counsel can support a waiver
when the record, fairly read, indicates that the defendant knew, heard,
understood, and agreed with what the lawyer was saying. Stegall, 124
Wash. 2d at 731 (no valid waiver where attorney waives right to 12-person jury
on the record in open court where the issue "arose suddenly" and there was
11
State v. Frawley (Brian W)/State v. Applegate (Ronald E.), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
no indication that counsel and client conferred on the point, but there was
indication that counsel waived a full jury "to avoid the embarrassment of
proceeding with jury selection with a broken zipper on his fly"). 5 That
describes what happened in Applegate's case, but it does not describe what
happened in Frawley's case.
CONCLUSION
I concur in the lead opinion's decision to affirm the Court of Appeals'
decision to reverse the conviction in Frawley. But I respectfully dissent
from the lead opinion's decision to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision to
affirm the jury's determination of aggravating factors at the sentencing
proceeding in Applegate.
5 There will certainly be exceptions, where more is required to waive the
right to an open courtroom, just as there are exceptions where more is required to
waive the right to a jury. As the Court of Appeals explained in State v. Downs, 36
Wash. App. 143, 145, 672 P.2d 416 (1983) and State v. Likakur, 26 Wash. App. 297,
300-01, 613 P.2d 156 (1980), a written waiver will usually suffice. It may not
suffice, however, when the record shows that the defendant needs more of an
explanation: "absent circumstances that initially raise a question regarding the
defendant's capacity to waive a jury trial, the trial court need not conduct an
independent inquiry on that issue prior to accepting waiver." Downs, 36 Wash. App.
at 145 (emphasis added) (citing Likakur, 26 Wash. App. at 300-01). That means that
where there are special circumstances-such as those concerning competency or
capacity-more than a silent written waiver is required.
12
State v. Frawley (Brian William)/State v. Applegate (Ronald), No. 80727-2
(Gordon McCloud, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
13
State v. Frawley (Brian William)
consolidated with State v. Applegate (Ronald Eugene)
No. 80727-2
(consolidated with No. 86513-2)
WIGGINS, J. (dissenting)-The lead opinion reverses the convictions in
Frawley and Applegate for public trial violations even though Ronald Applegate
affirmatively waived his right to a public trial and Brian Frawley never objected to the
in-chambers questioning of one juror and, in fact, consented to it. I respectfully
dissent.
I agree with Justice Gordon McCloud that a criminal defendant may
affirmatively waive his or her right to a public trial as long as the waiver meets the
constitutional standard for waiver. Concurrence/dissent at 2. Thus, like Justice
Gordon McCloud, I would affirm the Court of Appeals and affirm Applegate's
conviction because Applegate waived his public trial right.
I write separately because I also dissent from the lead opinion's decision in
Frawley. Waiver is one way to lose on appeal; failure to object or show prejudice is
another. Here, Frawley has not demonstrated that the limited questioning of jurors
in chambers was structural error. In addition, he failed to object to the alleged closure
at trial and fails to satisfy the requirements of RAP 2.5 on appeal. Neither defendant
nor the lead opinion can identify any prejudice whatsoever resulting from the alleged
error. Thus, I would hold that he is not entitled to a new trial.
Neither the lead opinion nor the defendants have identified any prejudice to
either defendant as a result of the limited in-chambers voir dire. Instead, the lead
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
opinion resorts to the doctrine of structural error, concluding that the in-chambers
voir dire rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. In relying on this highly theoretical
prejudice, the lead opinion ignores the actual harm resulting from reversal and retrial.
Not only is retrial a waste of judicial and prosecutorial resources, it subjects the rape
victims in Applegate's case and the family of the murder victim in Frawley's case to
the painful prospect of unnecessary retrials. The partially decomposed body of
Frawley's victim was discovered with a ligature around her neck and bruising inflicted
before her death. State v. Frawley, 140 Wash. App. 713, 716, 167 P.3d 593 (2007).
Semen matching Frawley's DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and fibers from the car
driven by Frawley were found on her body. '/d. at 716-17. The jury found Frawley
guilty, but the lead opinion reopens this 10-year-old murder case and subjects the
victim's family to the ordeal of another trial. The Applegate jury found that Applegate
repeatedly raped his wife's daughter and niece, from the ages 9 to 14 and 10 to 19
respectively, impregnating the niece at the age of 15. State v. Applegate, 163 Wn.
App. 460, 464, 259 P.3d 311 (2011 ). The lead opinion overturns Applegate's
conviction, reopening the trauma suffered by these young women two decades ago
and subjecting them to a retrial. No legitimate purpose is served by subjecting these
families to a retrial for in-chambers voir dire to which Applegate clearly consented
and to which Frawley never objected.
2
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
ANALYSIS
I. Our designation of all public trial violations as structural error is flawed
We should overrule our cases holding that all public trial violations, including
failure to conduct a Bone-Ciub 1 analysis, are structural error. State v. Wise, 176
Wash. 2d 1, 7, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012); State v. Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d 29, 33, 288 P.3d
1126 (2012). This rule is incorrect and harmful. City of Federal Way v. Koenig, 167
Wash. 2d 341, 346-47, 217 P.3d 1172 (2009) (stare decisis requires us to adhere to
precedent unless our earlier decision is incorrect and harmful). Labeling all public
trial errors as structural is incorrect because it conflicts with the clear definition of
"structural error." This rule is harmful because it leads to unnecessary reversals
where there is absolutely no showing of prejudice and it fails to reconcile competing
constitutional interests.
A. Conflicts with the definition of" structural error'
In Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302
(1991 ), the Supreme Court divided constitutional errors into two classes: structural
errors and trial-type errors. See State v. Levy, 156 Wash. 2d 709, 725, 132 P.3d 1076
(2006) (reiterating difference between structural and trial-type errors). As I explained
in my dissent in Paumier,
A structural error is an error that "'necessarily render[s] a criminal trial
fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or
innocence."' State v. Momah, 167 Wash. 2d 140, 149, 217 P.3d 321
(2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Washington v. Recuenco, 548
U.S. 212, 218-19, 126 S. Ct. 2546, 165 L. Ed. 2d 466 (2006) (quoting
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 19, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 144 L. Ed. 2d
1 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
3
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
35 (1999))), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 160 (201 0). Structural errors
'"infect the entire trial process"' and deprive the defendant of '"basic
protections,"' without which "'no criminal punishment may be regarded
as fundamentally fair."' Neder, 527 U.S. at 8-9 (quoting Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353
(1993); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 92 L. Ed. 2d
460 (1986)).
176 Wash. 2d at 45-46. Structural errors defy harmless error review because they are
"defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism." Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309-10.
These errors taint the entire proceeding but their specific prejudicial consequences
are "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S.
275, 282, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993); see also Neder, 527 U.S. at 7-
9. By contrast, a trial-type error occurs "during the presentation of the case to the
jury" and may be "quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented
in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt." Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-08.
The rare cases in which the Supreme Court has deemed errors structural have
involved complete denial of counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct.
792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963)), denial of choice of counsel (United States v. Gonzalez-
Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148-49, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006)), denial of
the public trial right due to closure of an entire suppression hearing (Waller v.
Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 49 n.9, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984 )), a biased trial
judge (Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535, 47 S. Ct. 437, 71 L. Ed. 749 (1927)), racial
discrimination in the selection of a grand jury (Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263,
106 S. Ct. 617, 88 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986)), and denial of the right to trial by jury where
4
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
the court gave a defective reasonable-doubt instruction (Sullivan, 508 U.S. 275).
What these errors have in common is that they affect myriad aspects of trial, making
it nearly impossible to assess how and whether the error affected the outcome of the
case. See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150-51. Nevertheless, we presume they
are prejudicial because they involve the complete denial of significant constitutional
rights.
The lead opinion simplistically assumes that any time jurors are questioned in
chambers the court has committed a structural error. But the United States Supreme
Court has never held that selected in-chambers voir dire of certain jurors is
automatically structural error and, indeed, has endorsed the practice in some
situations. See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 512, 104 S.
Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984) (when dealing with sensitive matters, limited
questioning of jurors in chambers is appropriate). Cases where the Court has
reversed a conviction due to an erroneous courtroom closure are limited. In Presley
v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 130 S. Ct. 721, 175 L. Ed. 2d 675 (201 0), the Court
reversed a conviction because the courtroom was closed to the public for the entire
voir dire. In Waller, the public was totally excluded from a seven-day suppression
hearing that included testimony of witnesses. 467 U.S. at 42.
The lead opinion ignores statements by the Supreme Court that there are
necessarily gradations of error and that labeling an error as structural in an extreme
case does not automatically mean that any violation of that constitutional right is also
structural error. The Court has noted that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to
5
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
determine guilt or innocence and that the court should focus '"on the underlying
fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial
error."' Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570,577, 106 S. Ct. 3101,92 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1986)
(quoting Delaware v. Van Arsda/1, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 89 L. Ed. 2d
67 4 (1986)). The Court also noted, "'Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on
the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the
public to ridicule it."' /d. (quoting Van Arsda/1, 475 U.S. at 681 (quoting ROGER J.
TRAYNOR, THE RIDDLE OF HARMLESS ERROR 50 (1970))). The Court concluded, "The
thrust of the many constitutional rules governing the conduct of criminal trials is to
ensure that those trials lead to fair and correct judgments. Where a reviewing court
can find that the record developed at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, the interest in fairness has been satisfied and the judgment should be
affirmed." /d. at 579. Accordingly, the Court concluded that a jury instruction that
impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on a specific issue to the defendant was
not necessarily structural error. /d. at 579-80.
The Court similarly held that even an instruction that might result in a
defendant being found guilty for noncriminal conduct is not necessarily structural
error. United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263-64, 130 S. Ct. 2159, 176 L. Ed. 2d
1012 (201 0). "That is because errors similar to the one at issue in this case-i. e.,
errors that create a risk that a defendant will be convicted based exclusively on
noncriminal conduct-come in various shapes and sizes. The kind and degree of
harm that such errors create can consequently vary." /d. at 265.
6
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
In Marcus, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that "we
should apply the label 'Ex Post Facto Clause violation' to the error in this case, and
that we should then treat all errors so labeled as special, 'structural,' errors that
warrant reversal without a showing of prejudice." /d. at 264. The Court held,
"[H]owever Marcus' claim is labeled, we see no reason why this kind of error would
automatically 'affec[t] substantial rights' without a showing of individual prejudice."
/d. at 264-65 (second alteration in original) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 135, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 173 L. Ed. 2d 266 (2009)). 2 Unfortunately, we have
repeated the same mistake rejected by the Marcus Court: we have labeled any in-
chambers voir dire as "structural error," oblivious to the actual impact or lack of
impact on the defendant's right to a public trial.
Our own cases confirm that the nature and extent of an erroneous closure at
trial can vary greatly. See, e.g., State v. Shearer, No. 86216-8 (Wash. Sept. 25,
2014) (in-chambers questioning of one juror who was ultimately dismissed); cf. In re
Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wash. 2d 795, 801-02, 100 P.3d 291 (2004) (judge
closed entire courtroom for two to four days of voir dire over the objection of the
defendant's family); State v. Easterling, 157 Wash. 2d 167, 172, 137 P.3d 825 (2006)
2 The Supreme Court has reserved the "structural error" label for truly egregious errors.
Indeed, there are cases where there was arguably more of a showing of prejudice than in
any of our cases here, and yet the Court did not label the errors as structural. In Rivera v.
Illinois, 556 U.S. 148, 129 S. Ct. 1446, 173 L. Ed. 2d 320 (2009) the Court held that a trial
judge's good faith error in denying defendant's peremptory challenge to a prospective juror,
who subsequently served as the foreperson on the jury that found defendant guilty of first
degree murder, was not a structural error that necessarily rendered defendant's criminal trial
fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence, as would
warrant reversal.
7
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
(courtroom closed to defendant, defense counsel, and public during motion to sever
a codefendant's trial). It follows that their effects on trial can vary as well, and I would
hold that "the remedy should be appropriate to the violation." Waller, 467 U.S. at 50.
Indeed, the current cases provide examples of nonstructural public trial errors.
In Applegate, before questioning a juror in chambers, the judge asked if any member
of the public objected; no one objected. The court then asked if Applegate objected.
After consulting privately with Applegate, defense counsel provided a valid waiver on
behalf of his client. See concurrence/dissent at 8. The parties then briefly
questioned one potential juror, who had asked to speak in private, in chambers.
In Frawley, because the case had garnered extensive pretrial publicity and
involved sensitive issues regarding sexual assault, the judge used a preliminary
questionnaire to ask prospective jurors four questions. If a juror answered yes to
any of the questions, the judge interviewed that juror in-chambers regarding his or
her answer. It is undisputed that Frawley waived his right to be present at this phase
and eventually waived his right to public presence during general voir dire.
Neither of these errors was structural error. Structural error analysis asks us
to determine whether the defendant received a fair trial, not a perfect trial. See
Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 619, 73 S. Ct. 481, 97 L. Ed. 593 (1953) ("A
defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one."); Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d at 44
(Wiggins, J., dissenting). In Applegate, the defendant knowingly and intelligently
waived his right to a public trial. In Frawley, the trial judge should have obtained a
waiver prior to the individual voir dire but there is absolutely no indication that failure
8
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
to do so rendered the trial unfair or unreliable. Thus, I would hold that the improper
in-chambers voir dire did not constitute structural error because it did not render the
trial unfair, nor did it convert an otherwise sound trial into an unreliable vehicle for
determining guilt or innocence.
These errors fail to meet the high standard for structural error and do not
belong in the same class of errors as closure of an entire suppression hearing,
complete denial of counsel, a biased trial judge, or racial discrimination in the
selection of a grand jury. Instead, these errors are analogous to the numerous other
constitutional errors identified by the Supreme Court as subject to harmless error
analysis. See Fu/minante, 499 U.S. at 306-07 (listing errors subject to harmless
error analysis, including jury instruction misstating an element of the offense,
erroneous exclusion of a defendant's testimony regarding circumstances of his
confession, restriction on a defendant's right to cross-examine a witness for bias,
denial of a defendant's right to be present at all critical stages, and denial of counsel
at a preliminary hearing).
Our current practice of deeming all public trial errors as structural is incorrect
because it fails to consider that public trial violations take on many forms. Moreover,
this rule conflicts with the definition of "structural error," which limits its application to
extraordinary circumstances. Adhering to precedent, I would begin the structural
error analysis with an inquiry into whether the improper closure rendered the trial
fundamentally unfair. This requires analyzing what impact, if any, the closure had on
the proceeding and, ultimately, the trial. Complete closure of an entire portion of trial
9
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
may be structural error because, in those instances, it is impossible to identify and
evaluate the specific consequences flowing from the error, but prejudice is more
likely. However, if a public trial violation is not structural error-i.e., if there is no
indication that it rendered the trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for
determining guilt-automatic reversal is not warranted. See, e.g., State v. Rainey,
180 Wash. App. 830, 845, 327 P.3d 56 (2014) (where public trial violation occurred at
post trial suppression hearing, remand for new trial not appropriate; remanded for
new hearing).
B. Leads to unnecessary retrials where there has been absolutely no showing
of prejudice
Our labeling of all public trial violations as structural is harmful because it has
led to unnecessary reversals and retrials, even when there is absolutely no indication
of prejudice. 3 Currently, we have in our court two cases in which it is clear that there
has been no prejudice and yet a majority of this court would reverse the convictions.
See Shearer, No. 86216-8, slip op. at 13 (lead opinion), slip op. at 3 (concurrence)
(Wash. Sept. 25, 2014).
In Shearer, the judge questioned juror 7 in chambers after the she indicated
that she would rather discuss sensitive domestic violence issues in private. Shearer,
slip op. at 3 (consolidated with State v. Grisby). The judge asked if anyone objected
3 That is because the remedy for structural error is automatic reversal and remand for a new
trial; this remedy is truly automatic because, unlike most constitutional errors, structural
errors are not subject to harmless error review. Lead opinion at 7; see also Paumier, 176
Wash. 2d at 45-46 (Wiggins, J. dissenting).
10
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
to the in-chambers questioning, and neither defense nor the state objected. /d. In
chambers, juror 7 revealed that her grandson was killed by his father in the home.
/d. Defense moved to dismiss juror 7 for cause, the state did not object, and the
juror was excused. /d. at 4. Similarly, in Grisby, the judge questioned one juror in-
chambers after a question arose as to whether a prior criminal conviction would
disqualify the juror. /d. The trial judge, counsel, and Grisby went into the chambers
with the juror for five minutes. /d. There is no record of what happened. /d.
Subsequently, defense counsel used a peremptory challenge to dismiss the juror.
/d. at 4-5.
I fail to see how interviewing one juror in chambers had any adverse impact
on these proceedings. The questioning occurred in the presence of counsel and the
judge. The defendant, through his counsel, had the opportunity to question the juror
and challenge him or her for cause or peremptorily. And in both cases, defense
counsel used challenges to dismiss the jurors as a result of the in-chambers
questioning.
As with the case before us, two recent Court of Appeals cases involve
defendants who opted to have jurors questioned privately. In State v. Herron, 177
Wash. App. 96, 104, 318 P.3d 281 (2013), the defendant was informed of his right to
have voir dire conducted in the courtroom but expressly requested that jurors be
questioned in chambers, believing he would learn more by having the inquiries made
in private. The court properly held that Jerry Herron had knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to a public trial. /d. In In re Pers. Restraint of Copland, 176 Wash.
11
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
App. 432, 442-43, 309 P.3d 626 (2013) defense counsel asked the trial judge to close
the courtroom to members of the media during the jury selection process to prevent
contamination of potential jurors. The court held that Copland's case presented "an
even stronger argument for invited error" than the facts in State v. Momah, 167
Wash. 2d 140, 154-55, 217 P.3d 321 (2009) because the defendant actively pursued
and participated in the error of which he complains. Copland, 176 Wash. App. at 442.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the personal restraint petition. /d. at 452.
These Court of Appeals decisions uphold the spirit and purpose of the public
trial right-to ensure a fair trial, to remind the officers of the court of the importance
of their functions, to encourage witnesses to come forward, and to discourage
perjury. State v. Brightman, 155 Wash. 2d 506, 514, 122 P.3d 150 (2005). None of
these goals is necessarily jeopardized when counsel questions potential jurors in
chambers in an attempt to encourage them to be more forthcoming about sensitive
topics. This is particularly true where, as here, the defendant approved of the tactic
and wanted to benefit from increased candor-Frawley waived his right to be present
during the questioning because he thought jurors would be more forthcoming in his
absence. The defendant certainly may be prejudiced by in-chambers voir dire, but
such prejudice is not "conclusive," nor should it be presumed. Indeed, this rule
creates a disturbing win-win for the defendant. As I explained in my dissent in
Paumier,
The majority would allow defense counsel to lie in the weeds, silently
consenting to private questioning (and reaping the benefits of increased
candor), while secretly nursing a public trial issue that would virtually
12
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
guarantee success on appeal. This would allow any defense counsel
who notices a public trial error like this one to remain quiet and gamble
on a jury verdict, knowing that the public trial issue will allow a do-over
once it is raised on appeal.
176 Wash. 2d at 52 (footnote omitted). 4
Blanket application of the structural error doctrine to public trial violations has
led to the vacation of dozens of convictions, even where there has been absolutely
no indication of prejudice. See State v. Smith, No. 85809-8, slip op. at 8 n.4
(concurrence). It is grossly inefficient to overturn these convictions. The Frawley
case took almost a year to try from pretrial motions to verdict; involved 33 witnesses,
65 exhibits, and an initial pool of 60 jurors; and resulted in a first degree felony
murder conviction. We disserve our justice system, principles of finality and fairness,
the public, all participants to a trial, and especially the victims of crime by failing to
engage in a meaningful inquiry to determine whether or not the defendant received
a fair trial-that is, a trial that does credit to our justice system and to the concept of
due process.
Labeling every public trial error as structural is a meat-cleaver approach to
what necessarily must be a highly nuanced, case-by-case inquiry into whether a
particular error requires reversal. In reality, there are many factors that bear on the
multiple concerns implicated whenever there is public trial violation: importance of
4 In Wise and Paumier, the dissents pointed out that the defendants actually benefited from
the closures because prospective jurors may have been more candid about hardships and
biases in private questioning. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 25 (J.M. Johnson, J., dissenting);
Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d at 52 (Wiggins, J., dissenting).
13
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
the right to the defendant when balanced against other competing rights, importance
of the right to the public, and basic principles of fairness. We should consider all of
these factors to determine whether the defendant has been prejudiced by the
violation of a constitutional right before reversing a conviction for error.
C. Fails to reconcile competing constitutional interests
The lead opinion's approach ignores competing constitutional rights. In fact,
the right to a public trial is just one of many rights guaranteed by our constitution to
persons accused of crimes. Among other rights are the right to trial by an impartial
jury, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to a fair trial. 5 See CaNST. article I,§ 22.
Generally, the constitutional guaranties of a public and fair trial advance the
common goal of an effective and fair judiciary. However, these essential rights at
times conflict. For example, allowing public access to all phases of trial potentially
interferes with a defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury due to adverse publicity,
juror contamination, and juror privacy and safety concerns. See, e.g., State v. Slert,
No. 87844-7, slip op. at 10 (Wash. Sept. 25, 2014) ("[q]uestioning the jurors about
their disqualifying knowledge in open court in front of the other jurors could have
been potentially devastating to Slert's right to a fair trial" due to contamination);
Shearer, slip op. at 3 (juror reluctant to answer questions regarding experience with
domestic violence in open court).
5 While all of these rights are in a broad sense for the protection of the public generally, they
are in a special sense privileges accorded to the accused. This is one of the reasons I agree
with Justice Gordon McCloud in her concurrence/dissent that a defendant may knowingly
and intelligently waive his or her right to a public trial.
14
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
Indeed, in-chambers voir dire can protect the defendant's right to a fair and
unbiased trial by encouraging potential jurors to be more forthcoming in responding
to voir dire. Empirical studies have shown that prospective jurors often do not reveal
sensitive information if required to do so in open court. See Paula L. Hannaford,
Safeguarding Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures,
85 JUDICATURE 18, 23 (2001 ). Moreover, publicizing juror responses to voir dire
questions could expose them to scorn or ridicule. See Press-Enter., 464 U.S. 501.
The knowledge that their responses will be made public may inhibit or destroy the
integrity of jurors' responses to questions. See United States v. Layton, 519 F. Supp.
959, 961-62 (N.D. Cal. 1981). Consequently, the voir dire may not successfully elicit
the information necessary to effectively screen jurors, which, in turn, may adversely
affect the fairness of a trial.
When the right to a fair trial and the right to a public trial conflict, neither right
is more deserving of constitutional protection. Trial courts are faced daily with the
difficult task of preserving a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial while safeguarding
the constitutional mandate that our courts be open. Unfortunately, our open courts
jurisprudence seems to have developed in a vacuum, ignoring the reality that many
decisions require courts to balance important, competing constitutional interests.
Public access can also have adverse impacts on jurors' constitutional right to
privacy. See Press-Enter., 464 U.S. at 511-12 (acknowledging that juror privacy right
15
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
might become sufficiently compelling to require limiting public access). 6 Under article
I, § 7 of the state constitution, "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or
his home invaded, without authority of law." This right of privacy extends to jury
service; the public's right of access to court records "is not absolute" but instead
"shall be consistent with reasonable expectations of personal privacy as provided by
article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution." GR 31 (a). To this end, GR
31 U) provides, "Individual juror information, other than name, is presumed to be
private" and juror information can be obtained only "[u]pon a showing of good cause."
We should not ignore the many constitutional interests at stake in order to protect
the one.
II. When error is not structural and the defendant does not object, RAP 2.5 is a
procedural bar to appeal
In accordance with controlling precedent, I would hold that structural error
analysis is appropriate only when applied to extraordinary circumstances that render
a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or ·an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or
innocence. When a public trial violation is not structural error and a defendant does
6 In State v. Strode, 167 Wash. 2d 222, 217 P.3d 310 (2009), we reversed a child rape and
molestation conviction because jurors were questioned in chambers regarding their
experience with sexual abuse. Justice Charles Johnson dissented, finding that the plurality
"dismisse[d] out of hand the legitimate privacy interests of jurors." /d. at 237. Justice
Johnson explained that juror privacy and candidness could be particularly important in cases
that involve extremely sensitive matters and that these interests could interfere with a
defendant's right to an impartial jury. /d. Justice Johnson concluded that the trial judge
balanced the jurors' interest in privacy with the defendant's right to a public trial by an
impartial jury and properly questioned jurors in-chambers. /d.
16
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
not object, RAP 2.5 controls and the defendant must show prejudice. State v.
Coristine, 177 Wash. 2d 370, 380, 300 P.3d 400 (2013).
Applying these principles to this case, I would hold that Frawley is not entitled
to a new trial. The public trial error here was not structural, and Frawley did not
object. Thus, RAP 2.5 applies. Under RAP 2.5, an appellate court need not review
errors raised for the first time on appeal, but there is an exception for any "manifest
error affecting a constitutional right." RAP 2.5(a)(3). If an error is constitutional in
nature, it can be reviewed for the first time on appeal only if it is "manifest," meaning
it '"had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case'" and can
survive harmless error review. State v. O'Hara, 167 Wash. 2d 91, 98-100, 217 P.3d 756
(2009) (quoting State v. Kirkman, 159 Wash. 2d 918, 925, 155 P.3d 125 (2007)). In
other words, a defendant who does not object must show actual prejudice resulting
from the error. /d.
There is no indication of prejudice in Frawley. Closure occurred because the
defense wanted the private questioning, and it was conducted for the defendant's
benefit. 7 Defense counsel asked the court to waive his client's presence for jury
selection. The court noted that in its experience, jurors talk more freely about
sensitive issues in private. In light of this, Frawley waived his own right to be present;
7 The record does not reflect whether or not the courtroom was ever actually closed to the
public. In his opening remarks to counsel before testimony began, the judge expressly
addressed the courtroom audience, saying that "the court is always open to the public as it
should be. I believe our court should always be open to the public, and that's why I allow
the press to come into the courtroom and that's important." 6 Verbatim Report of
Proceedings at 1068.
17
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
arguably, the public's presence would have similarly discouraged jurors from being
forthright with their answers. Moreover, only jurors who answered yes to any
question in the questionnaire, which was designed to identify bias or contamination,
were called into chambers. Thus, the closure furthered Frawley's right to a fair trial
and I would find that, under the circumstances, this right outweighed the defendant's
right to a public trial.
CONCLUSION
The lead opinion holds that all public trial errors are structural, tainting the
entire proceeding, rendering the trial fundamentally unfair, and requiring automatic
reversal. The lead opinion fails to appreciate the limited nature of structural error
analysis and fails to consider that public trial violations take on many forms.
Questioning jurors in chambers on sensitive topics with the defendant's agreement
is not fundamentally unfair in the same way as, for example, complete denial of
counsel or a biased trial judge. We should not presume prejudice where, had the
trial judge performed a Bone-Club analysis, there is every reason to believe that
closure would have occurred in exactly the same manner.
Here, because the error was not structural, we should instead apply the well-
developed and more precise rules we have incorporated into RAP 2.5. RAP 2.5
requires that Frawley's and Applegate's convictions be affirmed.
18
No. 80727-2 (consolidated with No. 86513-2)
(Wiggins, J., dissenting)
I respectfully dissent.
19