State Of Washington v. Terrance Jon Irby ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
C)
ha to0)
0
___, —4C
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) co >7,1
) 1-.•
-13
—4....4
I-41
DIVISION ONE 70
0
0--41
Respondent, ) 4-4
-41 -41
(71 •C•-ri r'
) No. 75901-9-1 In,Fri
v. )
) OPINION PUBLISHED IN PART; 727r
ocn
TERRANCE JON IRBY, )
) Cll —<
•-•
Appellant. )
) FILED: April 16,2018
)
DWYER,J. — Terrance Irby appeals from the judgment entered on a jury's
verdicts finding him guilty of one count of murder in the first degree and one
count of burglary in the first degree. Irby contends that the trial court erred by
denying his motion to dismiss. This ruling was based on the trial court's finding
that Irby did not establish prejudice arising from the actions of jail guards who
opened and read written communications from Irby to Irby's lawyer. The trial
court erred, Irby asserts, because it reached this conclusion without presuming
that the constitutional violation was prejudicial and without holding the
prosecution to its burden to present evidence sufficient to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the presumption of prejudice was overcome and that the
violation did not prejudice him.
No. 75901-9-1/2
We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying Irby's
motion to dismiss and remand this matter for further proceedings)
I
In April 2005, Irby was charged with one count of burglary in the second
degree, alleged to have occurred on March 6, 2005, and the following counts
alleged to have occurred on March 8,2005: one count of aggravated murder in
the first degree with an alternative allegation of first degree felony murder, one
count of burglary in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree,
three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, and one
count of attempting to elude a police vehicle. The latter charges arose out of the
robbery and bludgeoning death of James Rock.
In January 2007, a jury found Irby guilty of murder in the first degree with
aggravating circumstances, felony murder in the first degree, and burglary in the
first degree. Four years later, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial in light of the
court's determination that Irby's due process rights had been violated during jury
selection. See State v. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d 874, 246 P.3d 796(2011).
Irby's retrial was held in 2013. The State prosecuted the same charges
that were brought during the first trial and Irby was convicted as charged.
Notably, at the retrial, Irby was allowed to proceed pro se. He also voluntarily
absented himself from the trial. We subsequently reversed the judgment of
conviction and remanded the cause for yet another new trial because the trial
I In the unpublished portion of this opinion. Irby asserts additional claims that do not
warrant appellate relief.
- 2-
No. 75901-9-1/3
judge had erroneously seated a juror who had demonstrated actual bias against
Irby during voir dire. See State v. Irby, 187 Wash. App. 183, 347 P.3d 1103(2015),
review denied, 184 Wash. 2d 1036, 379P.3d 953(2016).
In March 2016, pretrial proceedings began for Irby's third trial. Attorney
Jennifer Rancourt filed a notice of appearance on Irby's behalf. In mid-March,
the State filed an amended information charging Irby with one count of
premeditated murder in the first degree and one count of burglary in the first
degree. Two days later, Irby appeared in court and was arraigned on the
charges. He entered pleas of not guilty.
In mid-March and again in late March, Irby requested to represent himself.
Following a colloquy with the trial court in mid-April, Irby's request was granted.
Four months later, Irby filed a pro se motion to dismiss the charges
against him. In his motion, Irby alleged misconduct by jail guards, claiming that
(during the period of time during which Ms. Rancourt represented him)they had
Improperly opened outgoing mail containing privileged legal communication
intended for his attorney.
The trial court denied Irby's motion. The trial court did determine that the
jail guards had violated Irby's right to counsel by opening and reading privileged
attorney-client communications. Although Irby argued that the trial court's
determination mandated that a presumption of prejudice be imposed, the trial
court placed on Irby the burden of proving prejudice and concluded that he did
not do so.
- 3-
No. 75901-9-1/4
One month later, Irby informed the trial court that he had decided not to
attend the trial and waived his right to be present at trial.
After a jury was selected without Irby's participation, the evidentiary stage
of Irby's third trial began. Irby did not attend the trial. The State presented its
case in chief and gave closing argument. No defense or closing argument were
presented on Irby's behalf.
The jury returned verdicts finding Irby guilty as charged.
Irby was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration of 388 months for
the murder in the first degree conviction and 54 months for the burglary In the
first degree conviction.
II
Irby contends that the trial court erred in denying his CrR 8.3(b) motion to
dismiss.2 Irby's contention has merit
A
This matter involves an alleged deprivation of a defendant's Sixth
Amendment right. In order to determine whether such a deprivation occurred—
and whether a remedy must issue—the inquiry proceeds as follows:
1. Did a State actor participate in the infringing conduct alleged by the
defendant?
2. If so, did the State actor(s) infringe upon a Sixth Amendment right of
the defendant?
2"We review the trial court's decision to deny a motion to dismiss under CrR 8.3 for
abuse of discretion, that Is, whether the decision was manifestly unreasonable, based on
untenable grounds, or made for untenable reasons? State v. Kone, 165 Wn. App. 420,433,266
P.3d 916(2011)(citing State v. Michielli, 132 Wn.2d 229,240,937 P.2d 587(1997). State v
Blackwell, 120 Wash. 2d 822, 830, 845 P.2d 1017(1993)).
-4 -
No. 75901-9-1/5
3. If so, was there prejudice to the defendant? That is, did the State fail
to overcome the presumption of prejudice arising from the infringement
by not proving the absence of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt?
4. If so, what is the appropriate remedy to select and apply, considering
the totality of the circumstances present, including the degree of
prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial and the degree of
nefariousness of the conduct by the State actor(s)?3
In analyzing the matter before us, we bear this framework in mind.
1
To determine whether the trial court erred in denying Irby's motion to
dismiss, we initially address whether a State actor engaged in misconduct.
[T]he Sixth Amendment concerns the confrontation between the State
and the individual." Michigan v. Jackson,475 U.S. 625,634, 106 S. Ct. 1404,89
L. Ed. 2d 631 (1986), overruled on other grounds by Monteio v. Louisiana, 556
U.S. 778, 129 S. Ct. 2079, 173 L Ed. 2d 955(2009).
Irby's motion to dismiss alleged that the confrontation between himself
and the State involved conduct by jail guards employed by the county jail in
which he was being housed. The trial court agreed. On appeal, neither party
disputes that the jail guards were State actors.
Thus, Irby established that the conduct underlying his claim involved State
actors.
3 By contrast, when no State actor was Involved in the alleged conduct, no State actor
Infringed upon a Sixth Amendment right, or no prejudice to the defendant arose from the
Infringement, a defendant has not been deprived of a Sixth Amendment right and no remedy
need be applied.
-5-
No. 75901-9-1/6
2
Having established that Irby has implicated conduct by State actors, we
next turn to whether the jail guards' conduct infringed upon his Sixth Amendment
right.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to
assistance of counsel, which includes the right to confer privately
with that counsel. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. State intrusion into
those private conversations is a blatant violation of a foundational
right We strongly condemn "the odious practice of eavesdropping
on privileged communication between attorney and client." State v.
Cory,62 Wn.2d 371, 378, 382 P.2d 1019(1963).
State v. Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d 808, 811, 318 P.3d 257(2014). Plainly, a
defendant's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel is violated when the
State intrudes into a privileged attorney-client communication. By implication, a
defendant's Sixth Amendment right is not necessarily infringed upon when the
attorney-client information acquired by the State is not privileged.
This calls for us to initially determine whether the information exposed to
the scrutiny of the jail guards included privileged attorney-client communications.
"The attorney-client privilege, codified in RCW 5.60.060, protects
confidential attorney-client communications from discovery so clients will not
hesitate to fully inform their attorneys of all relevant facts." Barry v. USAA, 98
Wash. App. 199, 204, 989 P.2d 1172(1999)(citing Escalante v. Sentry Ins. Co.,49
Wn. App. 375, 393, 743 P.2d 832(1987)).
To qualify for attorney-client privilege, a communication must
be made in confidence. Dietz v. John Doe, 131 Wash. 2d 835, 849,
935 P.2d 611 (1997). The presence of a third person during the
communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is
-6 -
No. 75901-9-1/7
necessary for the communication, State v. Martin, 137 Wash. 2d 774,
787,975 P.2d 1020(1999), or has retained the attorney on a
matter of"common interest," Broyles v. Thurston County 147 Wn.
App. 409,442, 195 P.3d 985(2008).
Morgan v. City of Fed. Way, 166 Wash. 2d 7471 757, 213 P.3d 596(2009). Thus, if
the Information contained in an attorney-client communication is not confidential,
the information is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Irby's motion to dismiss—and accompanying exhibits and addendum—
alleged that he had sent 14 pieces of confidential correspondence containing
privileged information to Rancourt that, he argued, had been improperly opened
and read by jail guards in the Skagit County Jail. The correspondence
constituted Irby's handwritten statements on both a "Public Defender Request
Form" and jail kites—multi-purpose request forms available to inmates in the
Skagit County Jail.
Irby's filings alleged that, prior to sending the correspondence, he had
folded each piece of paper in half, sealed each piece of paper with tape, and
written on the outward facing side,"CONFIDENTIAL,"RANCOURT," and
"ATTORNEY BOX."4
4 Presented In this manner, Irby's correspondence did not conform to the Skagit County
Jail policy for Inmate's outgoing legal mail.
Kites, if used to communicate with assigned counsel, standby counsel, or a
court-designated investigator, shall also be placed In an addressed and sealed
envelope marked 'Legal Mail." If the kite Is not so placed and marked, it may be
unfolded and/or read to identify the addressee and means of routing.
However, the trial court determined that the jail guards did not have a proper basis to
open and read Irby's correspondence, notwithstanding this Jail policy, because It was clear that
Irby's correspondence Identified the addressee (Rancour° and the means of routing ("Attorney
Box").
On appeal, the State does not challenge this determination by the trial court
-7-
No. 75901-9-1/8
The parties did not dispute in the trial court nor do they dispute on appeal
that the folded and taped pieces of paper were intended to be confidential and
included privileged attorney-client information. Thus, the aforementioned
correspondence from Irby to his counsel contained privileged attorney-client
information protected by the Sixth Amendment.
ii
The next matter to address is whether the jail guards' opening and reading
of Irby's privileged attorney-client correspondence infringed upon his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel.
As indicated, government prying into privileged attorney-client
communications is a "blatant violation" of the Sixth Amendment. Pena Fuentes,
179 Wash. 2d at 811.
In beginning its analysis, the trial court stated:
I'm going to be finding, and I could be wrong number wise,
that 12 out of the 14 communications that we're talking about here
were opened and time stamped by corrections deputies in the jail.
The other two were not stamped. And, of course, subsequently
could have been opened by the Jail or not opened until they got to
the receiving party. But by the time anyone saw them again they
had already been opened. But 12 of the 14 were stamped and
opened by the jail.
The trial court continued, "I am assuming that they were opened and opened
incorrectly and that the contents were reviewed by the custodial branch of the
Sheriffs Office?
The parties do not dispute the trial court's finding that jail guards had
opened and read Irby's privileged attorney-client communications. Thus, the jail
- 8-
No. 75901-9-1/9
guards—and therefore the State—infringed on Irby's Sixth Amendment right to
counsel. This constitutes misconduct, within the meaning of CrR 8.3.
3
Having established that State actors engaged in governmental misconduct
by reading privileged attorney-client communications, we now turn to whether
Irby was prejudiced by the misconduct. We begin with analyzing the trial court's
ruling that no prejudice resulted from the jail guards' misconduct.
1
After determining that the jail guards had engaged in misconduct by
opening and reading Irby's privileged attorney-client correspondence, the trial
court stated:
The next step MI having found that violation(,] does the
presumption of prejudice immediately kick in? And I have reviewed
the cases cited by both sides, and under these circumstances
without any indication of the investigative branch involved or direct
taping, listening into or obtaining by an investigator this information
I simply can't make the connection automatically that this was
provided to anyone in the Prosecutor's Office or anyone on the
Investigation side of the Sheriffs Office.
In this way, the trial court determined that it would not presume prejudice to Irby
because no law enforcement "investigative" personnel were involved in the jail
guards' infringing conduct.
In reaching this determination, the trial court emphasized what it perceived
as a significant distinction between two types of State actors, law enforcement
and jail security. In making this distinction, the trial court ostensibly reasoned
that State misconduct by law enforcement is more likely to prejudice a
defendant's fair trial right than is State misconduct by jail security. From this, the
- 9-
No. 75901-9-1/10
trial court then reasoned that a presumption of prejudice must apply to
misconduct by law enforcement but not to misconduct by jail security. Given
that, the trial court surmised, the defendant must have the burden of proof to
establish prejudice from the actions of jail security.
The trial court's reasoning was flawed.
More than half a century ago, our Supreme Court ruled that, when State
actors pry into a defendant's privileged attorney-client communications, prejudice
to the defendant must be presumed. Cory,62 Wn.2d at 377, 377 n.3("[W]e must
assume that information gained by the sheriff was transmitted to the prosecutor
and therefore "Where is no way to isolate the prejudice resulting from an
eavesdropping activity, such as this."). Recently, our Supreme Court in
Pena Fuentes reaffirmed this ruling and, in light of a State actor's eavesdropping
on privileged attorney-client communications, imposed a presumption of
prejudice. 179 Wash. 2d at 818-20 (citing Con', 62 Wash. 2d at 377, 377 n.3).
But the trial court herein ignored these rulings and instead artificially
distinguished between misconduct by law enforcement and misconduct by jail
security. Such a distinction is recognized neither by our Supreme Court nor by
this court. See,en,Pet% Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 818-20(presuming prejudice
from miscOnduct by police detective); Cory,62 Wn.2d at 377-78(presuming
prejudice from misconduct by sheriff, his officers, and prosecutor); State v.
Perrow 156 Wash. App. 322, 332,231 P.3d 853(2010)(presuming prejudice
arising from misconduct by police detective and prosecutor); State v. Garza,99
Wn.App. 291, 301, 994 P.2d 868(2000)(presuming prejudice from misconduct
- 10-
No. 75901-9-1/11
by jail guards); State v. Granacki, 90 Wash. App. 598, 603-04, 959 P.2d 667(1998)
(presuming prejudice from misconduct by police detective).
Indeed, where State intrusion into privileged attorney-client
communications is at issue,"the defendant is hardly in a position to show
prejudice when only the State knows what was done with the information
gleaned." Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 820. Hence,"Nile State," as "the party
that improperly intruded on attorney-client conversations,"must prove that its
wrongful actions did not result in prejudice to the defendant." Pena Fuentes, 179
Wash. 2d at 820. In this way, our decisional authority presumed prejudice not
because of which State actor had engaged in misconduct but, rather, because a
State actor—and therefore the State itself—infringed upon a defendant's Sixth
Amendment right.
Because the State actors here at issue—jail guards—infringed upon Irby's
Sixth Amendment right, prejudice must be presumed. Thus, the trial court erred
by not imposing a presumption of prejudice after it determined that the jail guards
had opened and read Irby's communications containing privileged attorney-client
information.
ii
Irby next contends that the trial court erred by determining that he was not
prejudiced by the jail guards' intrusion into his privileged attorney-client
communications. The trial court erred, Irby asserts, because it did not require the
State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of prejudice. Irby's
contention has merit.
No. 75901-9-1/12
The presumption of prejudice arising from a determination that the State
intruded into privileged attorney-client communications is rebuttable.
Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 819. Once the presumption is imposed,"the State
has the burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not
prejudiced." Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 819-20 (citing Granacki, 90 Wash. App.
at 602 n.3).5
The trial court's ruling as to whether there was prejudice to Irby was
as follows:
The next step, of course, having found this to be a violation
of inappropriately opening[,] is the contents therein. And from what
I have been told today at today's hearing there was nothing in those
contents, even if they had gone to the Prosecutors Office and even
if they were being directly used by the Prosecutor as some type of
a bio mechanism [sic]that would have prejudiced Mr. Irby from any
of the information I've heard of today. It certainly would be
inappropriate should that have actually happened. And certainly
we would then open probably a much stronger box of general
prosecutorial misconduct. But I have no basis of fact before me to
find that step ever occurred or that the contents of those letters
such that Mr. Irby is prejudiced in the presentation of his case.
There is no indication that the trial court applied the beyond a reasonable
doubt standard as set against a presumption of prejudice in evaluating whether
Irby was prejudiced by the governmental misconduct. Rather, the trial court
appears to have weighed the evidence on a more likely than not basis starting
from a state of equipoise.
From this, we cannot determine that the trial court would have reached the
same result had it required the State to rebut a presumption of prejudice beyond
6 Such a showing Is required, our Supreme Court Instructed, because Itjhe constitutional
right to privately communicate with an attorney Is a foundational right. We must hold the State to
the highest burden of proof to ensure that it Is protected? Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 820.
-12-
No. 75901-9-1/13
a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the existing record is insufficient to support only the
conclusion that the State proved an absence of prejudice beyond a reasonable
doubt. Had the correct burden and presumption been utilized, we cannot be
certain as to how the trial court would have viewed the evidence.
Pena Fuentes is instructive. There, the court addressed whether, by
submitting "a declaration stating that the detective on the case never
communicated any information about the attorney-client conversations to the
prosecution," the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Pena Fuentes
was not prejudiced by the governmental misconduct of the prosecution's lead
detective. Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 811. The Pena Fuentes court
determined that a declaration submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to
carry the State's burden. This was so, the court held, because the declaration
did not address the possibility that the prosecutor had wittingly pursued the case
in reliance on information obtained by the lead detective "as part of an
Investigation aided by the eavesdropping." Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 822.
Here, in response to Irby's motion to dismiss, the State submitted a
declaration in an attempt to disprove prejudice. The declaration read:
I, Erik Pedersen, am a Senior Deputy Prosecutor with the
Skagit County Prosecutor's Office. I have been the assigned
prosecutor on Mr. Irby's case, since the time of his first direct
appeal. As the assigned prosecutor, I would be informed of new
Information received by the prosecutor's office regarding the case.
On July 20,2016, I inquired of the lead detective on the case
since before Irby's last trial, Detective Kay Walker, about whether
she had received any information about communications between
Irby and his counsel from jailers. She indicated "No one has
shared any information at all from the jail kites. I have no idea what
he sent, when or what about?
-13-
No. 75901-9-1/14
1 as prosecutor have also received no information from
jailers at the Skagit County Jail regarding Mr. Irby's communication
with his counsel.
The only extent to which I am aware of the content of
communications between Mr. Irby and his counsel is based upon
the pleadings Mr. Irby filed with the trial court and a document that
Mr. Irby had his investigator send to me. I stopped reading that
document after 1 read the sentence beginning "Jon Ostlund went to
Moses Lake" because it was apparent at that point that the
pleading included communications with counsel. I have not read it
further. I have reviewed the document further only so far as to see
the dates on the documents and see if there are any jail stamps
indicating receipt.
As an initial matter, the declaration does not set forth an attestation from
Attorney Mary Ryan (the second prosecutor assigned to Irby's prosecution)that
she had no communication with the jail guards regarding the information they
gleaned from Irby's privileged attorney-client communications.
In addition, the declaration does not identify whether there were any other
investigators assigned to Irby's prosecution (other than Detective Kay Walker)
who might have communicated with the jail guards and gleaned privileged
attorney-client information from the jail guards' misconduct. Indeed, if other
investigators participated in Irby's prosecution, the State's declaration does not
address whether those investigators had, unbeknownst to the lead detective and
prosecutor, obtained information derived from the jail deputies' misconduct, used
that information in their investigation of Irby, and/or forwarded those investigative
materials to the lead detective or to the prosecutors.
Thus, the State's declaration did not eliminate the possibility that Irby's
right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the jail guards' misconduct Perla Fuentes,
-14-
No. 75901-9-1/15
179 Wash. 2d at 822. We cannot say that the declaration established that the State
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Irby was not prejudiced.
iii
The trial court erred by denying Irby's motion to dismiss. On this record,
the trial court properly determined that the jail guards constituted State actors for
the purpose of Irby's governmental misconduct claim. Moreover, it properly
reasoned that the jail guards had infringed upon Irby's Sixth Amendment right by
opening and reading his privileged attorney-client communications.
However, the trial court erred when it reasoned that it was not required to
impose a presumption of prejudice because a certain category of State actor (jail
security) had infringed upon Irby's Sixth Amendment right. As indicated, the
Sixth Amendment does not distinguish between State actors but, rather,
"concerns the confrontation between the State and the individual." Jackson, 475
U.S. at 634(emphasis added). In addition, we reiterate that our Supreme Court
has instructed that a presumption of prejudice mustfollow from a State actors
Infringement upon a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counse1.6
Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 818-20; Cory, 62 Wash. 2d at 377-78.
Furthermore, the trial court erred by not holding the State to its burden to
prove the absence of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt.
6 The distinctions between a jail guard and a detective may manifest themselves at a
hearing when the prosecution seeks to disprove prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt. That the
miscreant was a jail guard—rather than the lead detective—may aid in this showing or make the
presumption of prejudice easier to overcome. The trial judge was not wrong to recognize the
distinction between the two jobs. Rather, the judge simply erred by viewing this as raising a legal
issue(does the presumption of prejudice apply?) rather than an evidentiary one(do the job
differences tend to make prejudice less likely?).
-15-
No. 75901-9-1/16
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Irby's motion to dismiss. We
remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing with instructions to the trial court!
See Pena Fuentes, 179 Wash. 2d at 822; Garza 99 Wash. App. at 301-02.
iv
On remand, the trial court must commence the hearing by presuming that
the violation of Irby's right to counsel has prejudiced him. In addition, the trial
court must place on the State the burden to prove "the absence of prejudice
beyond a reasonable doubt." Pena Fuentes 179 Wash. 2d at 820. Thereafter, the
trial court must marshal all of the evidence and determine whether the State's
evidence has overcome the presumption of prejudice and established the
absence of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is at this stage of the proceeding that a trial court properly—and
importantly—considers the role of the State actors who engaged in the
misconduct. Indeed, the inquiry of the trial court on remand might involve
determining whether the information gleaned by the jail guards was
communicated to any member of the prosecution or investigation team and, if so,
whether the information was utilized in the State's third prosecution of Irby.
At the conclusion of the evidence, if the trial court determines that the
State's evidence overcame the presumption of prejudice, then Irby cannot be
said to have been prejudiced by the infringing conduct and no deprivation of his
7 The error Identified does not, at this time, warrant vacation of the judgment and
sentence.
-16-
No. 75901-9-1/17
Sixth Amendment right occurred. In that circumstance, denial of Irby's motion is
proper and the judgment and sentence may be left undisturbed.
If, however, the State fails to overcome the presumption, then the
infringing conduct constituted a deprivation of Irby's Sixth Amendment right. In
such a situation, the trial court must fashion a proper remedy that includes
vacation of the judgment and sentence previously imposed.
4
Where State conduct infringes upon a defendant's Sixth Amendment right
and prejudice results to the defendant's right to a fair trial, the trial court must
select and apply an appropriate remedy and, if necessary, an appropriate
sanction.
CrR 8.3(b) sets forth the trial court's discretion in this regard. The rule
reads, "The court ... may dismiss any criminal prosecution due to...
governmental misconduct when there has been prejudice to the rights of the
accused which materially affect the accused's right to a fair trial." (Emphasis
added.) Thus, CrR 8.3(b) grants the trial court discretion to "fashion an
appropriate remedy, recognizing that dismissal is an extraordinary remedy,
appropriate only when other, less severe sanctions will be ineffective." Garza, 99
Wash. App. at 301-02(citing Shillinoer v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1143(10th Cir.
1995)).
If called upon to fashion a remedy on remand, the trial court should
consider the totality of the circumstances, evaluating both the degree of prejudice
to Irby's right to a fair trial and the degree of nefariousness of the conduct by the
-17-
No. 75901-9-1/18
State actors. This might Include considering the motivations of the jail guards,
Irby's failure to follow Skagit County Jail policies regarding outgoing legal mail,
and the extent to which, if at all, Irby's privileged attorney-client communications
were utilized by the State in its third prosecution of Irby or could be so utilized in
the future.
In the event that the trial court determines that a remedy short of dismissal
Is warranted, vacation of the judgment will nevertheless be necessary. In
addition, in anticipation of yet another trial, other remedies might include—
singularly or in combination—suppression of evidence, disqualification of specific
attorneys from Irby's prosecution, disqualification of the Skagit County
Prosecuting Attorney's Office from further participation In the case, or exclusion
of witnesses tainted by the governmental misconduct.
B
We reverse the trial court's order denying Irby's motion to dismiss and
remand this matter with instructions set forth above.
The remainder of this opinion has no precedential value. It will, therefore,
be filed for public record in accordance with the rules governing unpublished
opinions.
III
Irby next contends that the trial court erred by commenting on the
evidence during jury voir dire.
The Washington Constitution provides,"Judges shall not charge juries
with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law."
-18-
No. 75901-9-1/19
CONST. art. IV,§ 16. This constitutional provision is violated when a judge's
comments "imply to the jury an expression of the judge's opinion concerning
disputed evidence, or express the court's attitude towards the merits of the
cause." Hansen v. Wightman 14 Wash. App. 78, 85, 538 P.2d 1238(1975)(citing
State v. Carothers, 84 Wash. 2d 256, 267,525 P.2d 731 (1974)); accord State v.
Jacobsen,78 Wn.2d 491,495, 477 P.2d 1 (1970).
To constitute a constitutionally-offensive comment, the judge's opinion or
attitude must be "reasonably inferable from the nature or manner of the questions
asked and things said." Dennis v. McArthur, 23 Wash. 2d 33, 38, 158 P.2d 644
(1945), overruled on other grounds by State v. Davis, 41 Wash. 2d 535, 250 P.2d
548(1952).
Here, the trial court sought to determine during voir dire if any of the
prospective jurors in the jury pool had been involved in a burglary. The trial court
began with a description of hypothetical burglaries, stating:
Burglary is any entering unlawfully and committing a crime.
So that could be anything from going into an open garage and
taking some tools to, in this case, the charge is burglary in the first
degree which involves either the element of a deadly weapon or
somebody being injured in the process.
1 have a feeling many, many of you have probably lost
property through some type of property crime.
Mr. Pedersen, do you want me to inquire of that or do you
want me to narrow it to where someone's actually been injured?
MR. PEDERSEN: Actually, burglary where property has
been taken.
THE COURT: Okay. So have any of you suffered a burglary
where someone has entered into a building or property and
committed a crime, stolen something, damaged something, if you
would raise your numbers.
-19-
No. 75901-9-1/20
Irby, granted pro se status, absented himself from voir dire. No objection was
interposed.
The trial judge did not comment on the evidence adduced in Irby's criminal
trial. As a preliminary matter, the evidence actually adduced by the State in
support of the burglary charge was not based on Irby "going into an open garage
and taking some tools" but, rather, was based on Irby going into a bedroom and
removing firearms stored therein.
In addition, the trial court clearly instructed the jury venire that the purpose
of its questions during voir dire was to Identify biased jurors. The trial judge
further instructed the seated jurors during trial to disregard any indication that he
had indicated his personal opinion regarding the evidence adduced at trial.
Moreover, if other remedies could have been sought, Irby forfeited his
right to request them by absenting himself from the proceeding.
Because the hypothetical burglary example given by the trial court during
voir dire and the evidence relied upon by the State in support of its burglary
charge were not the same and the jury was properly instructed, no reasonable
juror would have believed that the trial judge was imparting his opinion or attitude
toward the evidence during voir dire.
There was no error.
IV
Irby next contends that the trial court denied him a fair trial by not
dismissing the jury venire after a prospective juror stated that he felt an
inclination against Irby arising from Irby's first trial.
-20-
No. 75901-9-1/21
A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be tried by an impartial
jury. U.S. CONST. amend. VI; WASH.CONST. art. I, § 22(amend. 10); State v.
Davis 141 Wn.2d 798,824-25, 10 P.3d 977(2000). The decision to deny the
request to dismiss the jury venire is within the sound discretion of the trial court,
and we will not disturb that decision unless it was an abuse of discretion. State
v. Lewis, 130 Wn.2d 700,707,927 P.2d 235(1996). A trial court abuses its
discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable, or based on untenable
grounds or untenable reasons. State v. Bankston 99 Wash. App. 266, 268,992
P.2d 1041 (2000). The trial court is in the best position to determine whether a
juror can be fair and impartial based on mannerisms, demeanor, and general
behavior. State v. Noltie, 116 Wash. 2d 831, 839,809 P.2d 190(1991).
The purpose of voir dire is to allow parties to gain information, which
enables them to challenge jurors for cause or to use peremptory challenges.
State v. Frederiksen,40 Wn. App. 749, 752, 700 P.2d 369(1985). "The trial
court's exercise of discretion is limited only by the need to assure a fair trial by an
impartial jury." Frederiksen,40 Wn. App. at 752 (citing United States v. Jones,
722 F.2d 528, 529(9th Cir. 1983)).
During voir dire, the prosecutor indicated that he had no further general
questions for the jury venire and the trial court responded:
THE COURT: Okay. The only other point I want to ask all of
you is — and I don't want to emphasize this too much. But I've
already indicated that Mr. Irby, who represents himself, has chosen
not to be here.
I need an honest assessment from all of you that you can be
fair and impartial regardless of his nonappearance, that you will not
hold that against him in any way.
- 21 -
No. 75901-9-1/22
Is anyone feeling uncomfortable with the ability to evaluate
the testimony and the evidence and decide what did or didn't
happen regardless of someone else sitting on the other side?
•••
... No.60?
JUROR 60: From the summary I've heard, not that Ijudge,
but! would lean more against him.
THE COURT: Okay. I don't know how you could be leaning
at all because you haven't heard any evidence. But I'm not trying
to change your mind.
The job of a jury is to start with a blank slate, if you will, listen
to the evidence and then make a decision about whether the State
has proven its case or not. And if you feel somehow that you're not
able to start with a presumption of innocence and see what the
evidence shows or doesn't show, I'm not going to hold you in. I'm
not trying to change your mind. You don't feel you can be fair then?
JUROR 60: From his first case, of course that's — I —
THE COURT: All right.
JUROR 60: I lean negative.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: No, let's just leave that right there. I don't
want him to repeat that comment either.
So Mr. Pineda, you are excused, Juror No. 60. I appreciate
you being here. Please call the jury line Wednesday after 4:30. The
Court has excused No. 60.
Anyone else?
All right.
(Emphasis added.) The trial court later identified Juror 60's utterance as a
"passing comment," that "wasn't a very strong statement," and "could be subject
to lots of interpretations."
As indicated, Irby absented himself from voir dire. No objection was
interposed on his behalf.
There was no abuse of discretion. The trial judge promptly comprehended
that Juror 60 had expressed a bias stemming from his knowledge of Irby's first
trial. By immediately instructing Juror 60 to stop speaking and excusing him from
-22-
No. 75901-9-1/23
the jury venire, the trial judge accomplished the purpose of voir dire and thereby
protected Irby's right to trial by a fair and impartial jury.
In addition, there is no indication that the jury venire was tainted by Juror
60's comment. Finally, if other remedies could have been sought, Irby forfeited
his right to request them by absenting himself from the proceeding.
There was no error.
V
Irby next contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by stating
during closing argument that the evidence presented during trial and the
elements of the charges brought against him were undisputed.
We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as attorneys. State v.
Bebb, 108 Wash. 2d 515, 524,740 P.2d 829(1987). Indeed,"[t]tle right to waive
counsel does not include a right to be immune from the consequences of self-
representation." State v. DeWeese, 117 Wash. 2d 369, 382, 816 P.2d 1 (1991).8
When counsel does not object to a prosecutors alleged
misconduct, request a curative instruction, or move for a mistrial,
appellate review of the prosecutor's conduct is precluded unless it
was misconduct so flagrant and ill intentioned that no instruction
could erase the prejudice engendered by it. State v. Belqarde, 110
Wash. 2d 504, 507,755 P.2d 174(1988); State v. Dunaway, 109
Wash. 2d 207, 221, 743 P.2d 1237 corrected, 749 P.2d 160(1987). If
unchallenged misconduct was so inflammatory that an instruction
would not have cured it, reversal of the conviction is required if
there is a substantial likelihood that the misconduct affected the
jury's decision. Belaarde, 110 Wash. 2d at 509-10; State v. Barrow,
60 Wn. App. 869,876, 809 P.2d 209, review denied, 118 Wash. 2d
1007, 822 P.2d 288(1991).
8 1Ciounsel may not remain silent, speculating upon a favorable verdict and then, when
It is adverse, use the claimed misconduct as a life preserver on a motion for new trial or on
appeal.'" State v. Russell, 125 Wash. 2d 24, 93, 882 P.2d 747(1994)(quoting Jones v. Hogan, 56
Wash. 2d 23, 27, 351 P.2d 153(1960)).
-23-
No. 75901-9-1/24
State v. Fiallo-Lopez 78 Wash. App. 717, 726,899 P.2d 1294(1995).
Here, prior to the prosecutors closing argument, the trial court instructed
the jury that, "[t]he defendant is not required to testify or be present at trial. You
may not use the fact that the defendant has not testified or been present at trial
to infer guilt or to prejudice him in any way." In presenting closing argument, the
prosecutor began by conducting a lengthy review of the evidence presented in
the case. Then, before addressing the elements of each charged crime, the
prosecutor stated:"So what do we have? We have undisputed evidence in this
case. There is no conflicting evidence against what you have been given, and
the elements of the charges are undisputed."
Immediately thereafter, the prosecutor began to detail the elements of the
charged crimes:"Now, when you decide the case, you have to decide the
elements of the charges. That's your roadmap for how these crimes were
committed." The prosecutor concluded by arguing that the State's case was
supported by the evidence adduced at trial and the reasonable inferences
therefrom.
Irby, having elected to represent himself, voluntarily absented himself from
trial. No objection was interposed on his behalf during the prosecutors closing
argument.
Irby contends that the prosecutor's statements that the evidence and
elements are undisputed constituted a comment on his election not to testify at
trial.
A prosecutor violates a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights
if the prosecutor makes a statement "of such character that the jury
-24-
No. 75901-9-1/25
would 'naturally and necessarily accept it as a comment on the
defendant's failure to testify.'" State v. Ramirez, 49 Wash. App. 332,
336,742 P.2d 726(1987)(quoting State v. Crawford, 21 Wash. App.
146, 152, 584 P.2d 442(1978), review denied 91 Wash. 2d 1013
(1979)). The prosecutor may say that certain testimony is undenied
as long as he or she does not refer to the person who could have
denied it. Ramirez 49 Wash. App. at 336.
FiaIlo-Lopez, 78 Wash. App. at 728-29; accord State v. Barry, 183 Wash. 2d 297, 306,
352 P.3d 161 (2015)(citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609,609-15,85 S. Ct.
1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106(1965)). "The prosecutor may also comment that
evidence is undisputed when these comments are so brief and so subtle that
they do not emphasize the defendant's testimonial silence." Ramirez,49 Wn.
App. at 336 (citing Crawford, 21 Wash. App. at 152). We presume that the jury
follows the trial court's instructions. Barry, 183 Wash. 2d at 306 (citing State v.
Foster, 135 Wn.2d 441,472, 957 P.2d 712(1998)).
The prosecutors statements did not constitute a flagrant and ill-
intentioned comment on Irby's decision not to testify at his trial. In the two brief,
challenged sentences in the middle of a lengthy closing argument, the prosecutor
neither expressly identified Irby by name nor indicated that Irby had elected not
to testify at trial. Given that, the prosecutor did "not emphasize the defendant's
testimonial silence." Ramirez, 49 Wash. App. at 336 (citing Crawford, 21 Wash. App.
at 152).
Moreover, there is no indication that the jury thought about the defendant's
silence or choice not to testify. parry, 183 Wash. 2d at 308-09 (citing United States
v. Elkins, 774 F.2d 530, 537(1st Cir. 1985)). In addition, the jury was specifically
-25-
No. 75901-9-1/26
instructed not to infer guilt from Irby's decision not to attend his trial. There was
no error.
Irby next contends that the prosecutor's statements that the evidence and
elements are undisputed shifted the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
A criminal defendant has no duty to present evidence, and it
is error for the prosecutor to suggest otherwise. State v. Cheatam
150 Wash. 2d 626, 652, 81 P.3d 830(2003). An argument that shifts
the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
constitutes misconduct State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438,453,
258 P.3d 43(2011); State v. Gregory 158 Wash. 2d 759, 859-61, 147
P.3d 1201 (2006).
However, a prosecutor is entitled to point out the
improbability or lack of evidentiary support for the defense theory of
the case. State v. Russell, 125 Wash. 2d 24, 87, 882 P.2d 747(1994).
A prosecutor has wide latitude to comment on the evidence
Introduced at trial and to draw reasonable inferences from the
evidence. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 448. The "mere mention that
defense evidence is lacking does not constitute prosecutorial
misconduct or shift the burden of proof to the defense." State v.
Jackson 150 Wn.App. 877,885-86, 209 P.3d 553(2009).
State v. Osman,192 Wn.App. 355, 366-67, 366 P.3d 956(2016).
The prosecutor's statements did not constitute a flagrant and ill-
Intentioned comment that shifted the State's burden of proof. By indicating that
the evidence in the case and the elements of the charged crimes were
undisputed, the prosecutor was merely pointing out the lack of evidentiary
support for Irby's general denial defense.
Moreover, if other remedies could have been sought, Irby forfeited his
right to request them by absenting himself from the trial.
-26-
No. 75901-9-1/27
Irby does not demonstrate that the prosecutor engaged in flagrant and ill-
Intentioned misconduct. There was no error.9
VI
Irby submits on appeal an "informal brief of pro se appellant," which we
analyze as a pro se statement of additional grounds for relief pursuant to RAP
10.10. Each of his claims are discussed in turn.
Irby contends that the trial court deprived him of his right to due process
during a hearing on August 12, 2016 by denying him the opportunity to read his
motions into the record and by demanding that he summarize his motions.
The record from the August 12 hearing does not support Irby's contention.
He was allowed to read at length from his motion to dismiss, the trial court did not
demand that he summarize his motions, and the trial court afforded him ample
time to argue his position. There was no error.
Irby next contends that the trial court erred by denying his Brady motion
because the State did not disclose Federal Emergency Management Agency
files that, he argues, were relevant to whether there was "a robbery/homicide
motive to the crime? In a criminal case, the prosecution must disclose to the
defense any evidence that is favorable to the accused and material to guilt or
punishment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,87, 83S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d
215(1963). Irby does not explain how this evidence is material to the purpose
for which he sought to use it. Irby's claim fails.
9 Irby's appellate briefing also contends that the cumulative error doctrine mandates
reversal. As Indicated, the trial court erred by not presuming that Irby was prejudiced in analyzing
his CrR 8.3(b) motion. However, no further trial court error occurred. Thus, Irby's cumulative
error contention fails.
-27 -
No. 75901-9-1/28
Irby next contends that the State was judicially estopped from disputing
whether the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the facts
underlying Irby's motion to dismiss. This is so, Irby avers, because the State
suggested that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing and, one month later,
suggested that the trial court not do so. However, a trial court's "[a]cceptance of
an initial position is a precondition to the application of judicial estoppel." Taylor
v Bell 185 Wn.App. 270,284, 340 P.3d 951 (2014). The trial court herein did
not accept the State's position during the July hearing but, rather, delayed
determining whether to hold an evidentiary hearing until the hearing in August.
There was no error.
Irby next contends that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance
of counsel because his attorney neither investigated his accusations that his
legal correspondence was being read by jail guards nor sent him a sufficient
number of envelopes into which he could deposit the legal correspondence he
wished to mail to her.
To show the prejudice required to prevail on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, Irby must establish that a reasonable probability exists
that, but for his counsel's failure to conduct an investigation into the opening of
the jail kites and failure to send him additional mailing envelopes, the result of the
proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.668,
694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L Ed. 2d 674(1984).
Irby does not demonstrate that the result of the proceeding would have
been different had his counsel investigated the opening of jail kites or sent him
-28-
No. 75901-9-1/29
additional envelopes. Notably, two weeks after the jail kites had been opened by
the jail guards, Irby's request to proceed pro se was granted. Irby does not
demonstrate that, during that two week period, an investigation by his counsel
would have uncovered information that would have probably changed the
outcome of his trial. Moreover, Irby does not establish that his counsel had a
duty to send him envelopes nor does he establish that, had he obtained
additional envelopes, the result of the trial would probably have been different.
Accordingly, Irby does not satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland
testi°
The judgment is affirmed but the order denying the CrR 8.3 motion is
reversed; the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
We concur:
_cif-6_1\N\ r
10 Irby also contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. This
Issue was raised and well-argued by Irby's counsel on appeal.
-29 -