State Of Washington v. Kenneth Lane Slert

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
2015 AUG 26 PM 12: 52
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BY
Y --
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 40333 -1 - II
Respondent,
V.
KENNETH LANE SLERT, PUBLISHED OPINION
JOHANSON, C. J. — On remand, our Supreme Court asks us to consider whether the trial
court' s violation of Kenneth Lane Slert' s constitutional right to be present when several jurors
were excused outside his presence was harmless error. Slert argues that the error was not harmless
because the State cannot demonstrate that these excused jurors had no chance to sit on the jury.
We hold that the State fails to show that the trial court' s violation of Slert' s constitutional right to
be present during jury selection was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse
his conviction and remand for a new trial.
No. 40333 -1 - II
FACTS
The State charged Slert with first degree murders and second degree murder.2 On January
6, 2010, during a pretrial hearing, the parties agreed to design a questionnaire to determine what,
if any, knowledge the prospective jurors had regarding the prior proceedings in Slert' s case. Slert' s
counsel was concerned that knowledge of prior proceedings could taint the panel. Slert was present
at this hearing.
On January 21, the parties discussed the proposed questionnaire at another pretrial hearing
The State suggested changing the questionnaire so that it referred to the, prospective jurors'
knowledge of " prior proceeding[ s]" in Slert' s case rather than " prior trial[ s]." Report of
Proceedings ( RP) ( Jan. 21, 2010) at 3. The court agreed. Slert was present at this hearing as well.
On January 25, the first day of trial, the court gave the jurors the questionnaire. After the
prospective jurors filled out the questionnaires but before the court went on the record, a pretrial
conference was held in chambers. During this conference, counsel for both parties agreed to
excuse four prospective jurors. Slert was not present for this pretrial conference. In court, with
Slert present, the court announced, " I have already, based on the answers [ to the questionnaires],
after consultation with counsel, excused jurors number 19, 36, and 49 from panel two which is our
primary panel and I' ve excused juror number 15 from panel one, the alternate panel." 1 RP at 5.
Slert' s counsel also suggested that the four jurors were excused because they " have indicated
knowledge of ... prior court trials." 1 RP at 11. The record contains no other information about
s RCW 9A.32. 030( 1).
2 RCW 9A.32. 050( 1)( a).
01
No. 40333 -1 - II
what the four excused jurors' answers to the questionnaires were or the extent of those jurors'
knowledge of the prior proceedings in Slert' s case. The trial court destroyed the answered
questionnaires and saved only a draft of the questionnaire for the record. State v. Slert, 169 Wn.
App. 766, 769 n. 6, 282 P.3d 101 ( 2012) ( Siert I), rev' d, 181 Wash. 2d 598, 334 P.3d 1088( 2014)
Slert II).
In open court and with Slert present, the trial court and counsel then conducted individual
voir dire of additional jurors based on their questionnaires. The court and counsel asked each juror
about their knowledge of Slert' s case, where they had heard about the case, and whether any prior
knowledge of the case " would affect [ their] ability.to be fair and impartial." 1 RP at 18. Each of
these jurors had varying levels of knowledge of Slert' s case and prior proceedings againsi him.
Slert' s counsel asked to excuse four of those jurors for cause— three jurors had knowledge of
Slert' s prior trials and one juror had a friendly and professional relationship with one of the
investigators whom the State did not plan to call as a witness. The court excused the three jurors
who had knowledge of a prior trial even though each said that he or she could remain impartial.
The trial court denied Slert' s challenge to the witness who knew and worked with one of the
investigators.
Voir dire then continued in open court until they finalized a panel of 14 jurors. Slert' s jury
consisted entirely of jurors from panel two,, ranging from juror number 3 to juror number 43.
In February 2010, the jury convicted Slert of second degree murder and Slert appealed his
conviction. On appeal, we held that the trial court violated both his right to a public trial and his
right to be present when it excused the four prospective jurors based on their questionnaires in
chambers. Slert I, 169 Wn. App. at 769. Because we held that Slert' s public trial violation was
3
No. 40333- 1- 11
structural error requiring reversal, we did not address whether the violation of Slert' s right to be
present was harmless error. Slert I, 169 Wn. App. at 778- 79. Our Supreme Court found no
violation of Slert' s public trial rights and remanded the case to us to determine whether the
violation of Slert' s right to be present was harmless error. Slert II, 181 Wash. 2d at 609.
ANALYSIS
Slert argues that the State fails to establish that the violation of his right to be present was
harmless. We agree that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND RULES OF LAW
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of
the Washington Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the right to be present at " critical
stages" in their trial. State v. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d 874, 880- 81, 884- 85, 246 P.3d 796 ( 2011). A
violation of a defendant' s right to be present during all critical stages of his trial is subject to
constitutional harmless error analysis. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 885- 86.
Under this standard, it is the State' s burden to demonstrate that a violation of a defendant' s
right to be present was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886; State v.
Burdette, 178 Wn. App. 183, 201, 313 P.3d 1235 ( 2013). The State must prove beyond. a
reasonable doubt that the violation of a defendant' s right to be present had no effect on the verdict.
Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886- 87. In order to satisfy its burden in the context of juror dismissals, the
State must demonstrate that the excused jurors " had no chance to sit. on [ Slert' s] jury." Irby, 170
Wash. 2d at 886.
M
No. 40333 -1 - II
II. SLERT' S BURDEN TO RAISE THE POSSIBILITY OF PREJUDICE
As a threshold matter, the State argues that it is Slert' s burden to first allege prejudice from
the violation of his right to be present before the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate that any
violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Its argument is based on State v. Caliguri, 99
Wash. 2d 501, 509, 664 P.2d 466 ( 1983) (``.``Nonetheless, the defendant must first raise at least the
possibility of prejudice."). Even assuming Slert is required to allege prejudice,. he satisfies this
burden. Slert raises the issue when he argues, " Furthermore, as in Irby, the prejudice is clear from
the record." Suppl. Br. of Appellant at 6.
Here, as in Irby, the prejudice alleged is clear from the record: jurors were excused for
cause for case -specific reasons that were never tested in the defendant' s presence. See 170 Wash. 2d
at 886. The Irby court described the prejudice that Irby endured as "[ r] easonable and dispassionate
jurors] may look at the same evidence and reach a different result. Therefore, the State cannot
show beyond a reasonable doubt that the removal of several potential jurors in Irby' s absence had
no effect on the verdict." 170 Wash. 2d at 886- 87. Thus, the alleged prejudice was the removal of
some potential jurors in Slert' s absence. We hold that Slert adequately raised the possibility of
prejudice.
III. ERROR NOT HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
Slert argues that the State cannot establish that the violation of his right to be present was
harmless because three of the four excused jurors " had some chance of sitting on the jury." Suppl.
Br. of Appellant at 7. We agree the error is not harmless.
Our Supreme Court held in Irby, that Irby' s right to be present during a critical stage of his
trial jury selection— was violated and the error was not harmless because several jurors who had
R
No. 4033 3 - 1 - II
been excused " fell within the range ofjurors who ultimately comprised the jury" and " their alleged
inability to serve was never tested by questioning in Irby' s presence." 170 Wash. 2d at 886.
In Irby, after prospective jurors were sworn and had filled out case -specific questionnaires,
the court, in consultation by e- mail with counsel, excused 10 jurors before voir dire. 170 Wash. 2d
at 877- 78. The record did not establish that Irby spoke with his counsel before counsel responded
to the court' s e- mail or that he was aware that the jurors would be excused. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at
884.
The trial court excused several jurors in Irby due to hardships and not due to any case -
related objection. 170 Wash. 2d at 886. Our Supreme Court concluded that had they been present
for voir dire " and been subjected to questioning in Irby' s presence as planned, the questioning
might have revealed that one or more of these potential jurors were not prevented by reasons of
hardship from participating." Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886. The State also did not show that the excused
jurors had no chance to sit on Irby' s jury. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886- 87.
Here, the facts are analogous to Irby because ( 1) excused jurors 19 and 36 from panel two
fit within the range of jurors who were ultimately seated and ( 2) " their alleged inability to serve
was never tested by questioning in [ Slert' s] presence." 170 Wash. 2d at 886. Slert' s final jury
consisted of jurors from panel two ranging from juror number 3 to juror number 43. 3 Excused
jurors 19 and 36 fit sequentially within that range of jurors. This is important because had these
jurors not fit within the range of jurors who ultimately comprised Slert' s jury, they would have
had no chance to sit and any error would be harmless. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886.
3 None of the jurors from the alternate panel, panel one, were seated on Slert' s jury.
6
No. 40333 -1 - II
Yet these jurors were excused based solely on their written answers to a jury questionnaire
during an in -chambers conference outside Slert' s presence. The excused jurors' answers to the
questionnaire were not " tested by, questioning in [ Slert' s] presence" nor are their answers in the
record because the questionnaires were.destroyed. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886; Slert I, 169 Wash. App.
at 769 n. 6. Slert did not have the opportunity to discuss the basis for the excusal of these two
jurors .with his counsel either before or after the in -chambers conference. Slert I; 169 Wash. App. at
775; Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 884 ("`` where ... personal presence is necessary in point of law, the record
must show the fact"' ( alteration in original) ( quoting Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 372,
13 S. Ct. 136, 36 L. Ed. 1011 ( 1892))). Notably, the trial court did conduct individual voir dire in
open court and in Slert' s presence of 14 jurors whom Slert' s counsel suspected might also have
had prejudicial prior knowledge of the case based on their answers to the questionnaires. But the
record provides no explanation for why those jurors were questioned in Slert' s presence and the
jurors that the court excused in chambers were not questioned in Slert' s presence.
The dissent points out that the jurors in Irby were excused for hardship, where here the
jurors were
likely excused for bias. Dissent at 17. We disagree because ( 1) as stated above, the
record is not clear about why the jurors were excused and ( 2) we view this distinction as one
without a difference. The record demonstrates that the jurors were excused " for cause," that Slert' s
counsel agreed to their excusal, and that the jurors were likely excused because of knowledge of
previous proceedings in Slert' s case. 2 Clerk' s Papers at 194.
Furthermore, even in Irby where the reasons for the jurors' hardship excusals were apparent
from the record, the court nonetheless held that questioning the jurors in Irby' s presence could
have demonstrated their ability to serve. 170 Wash. 2d at 886. Likewise, had Slert' s jurors been
7
No. 40333 -1 - II
present for voir dire and questioned in Slert' s presence, Slert could have established that some of
the excused jurors were not prevented from serving due to bias. We reach this conclusion
particularly because the jurors' answers to the questionnaires have been destroyed and we do not
know the basis for their excusal. Moreover, during the individual voir dire, some jurors with prior
knowledge of the case were dismissed while others were not. This creates more uncertainty about
why the trial court dismissed the jurors in chambers, making it more difficult for the State to
demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the excused jurors had no chance to sit on Slert' s jury.
Having the answers to the jurors' questionnaires might show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that some
or all of the potential jurors were biased such that they had no chance to serve on the jury. But
those facts are not before us.
As the Irby court explained, " Reasonable and dispassionate minds may look at the same
evidence and reach a different result. Therefore, the State cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt
that the removal of several potential jurors in Irby' s absence had no effect on the verdict." 170
Wash. 2d at 886- 87. Because ( 1) excused jurors 19 and 36 were never questioned in Slert' s presence,
2) they fit within the range of jurors who were ultimately seated in this case, and ( 3) the State
cannot demonstrate that they had no chance to serve on the jury, the constitutional violation of .
Slert' s right to be present during jury selection was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV. THE STATE' S ARGUMENTS FAIL
The State argues that ( 1) Irby does not control here because, unlike in this case, in Irby
there was " no evidence in the record" to explain why jurors were excused, ( 2) the record
establishes that the jurors who were excused in chambers here were prejudiced against Slert, and
3) our decision in State v. Miller, 184 Wn. App. 637, 338 P.3d 873 ( 2014), review denied, 182
No. 40333 -1 - II
Wn.2d 1024 ( 2015), is on point and should control in this case. Suppl. Br. of Resp' t at -10. We
disagree because ( 1) the record in Irby actually contained more evidence about why the jurors were
excused than the record before us, and, like this case, the jurors were not questioned in the
defendant' s presence; ( 2) the State cannot establish that the jurors who were excused in chambers
were prejudiced against Slert beyond a reasonable doubt; and ( 3) Miller is factually
distinguishable.
First, the .State' s argument that there was no evidence in Irby as to why the jurors were
excused is incorrect because the reasons that the trial court excused prospective jurors in Irby were
apparent from the record. As explained above, two jurors were excused because their terms of
jury duty were almost expired and the third was excused because he or she home schooled his or - .
her children. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 878. Here, there are just two statements about the jurors excused
in chambers. Before voir dire, the court stated that " I have already, based on the answers [ to the
questionnaires] excused jurors number 19, 36, and 49 from panel two [ and] juror number 15 from
panel one." 1 RP at 5. Slert' s counsel also stated, " I' ve got a list of 15 jurors that responded that
they knew something about the case based on the publicity. My concern is none of them -- well,
none of the ones other than the ones The Court has already pulled have indicated knowledge of
any prior court trials." 1 RP at 10- 11. Thus, the record in Irby provided more information than
here about why the jurors were excused.
Nonetheless, the Irby court held that had the excused jurors been questioned in the
defendant' s presence, they might not have been excluded. 170 Wash. 2d at 886- 87. The issue in
Irby, therefore, was not only whether the reasons that the court excused the jurors were apparent
from the record, but also whether the defendant should have had the opportunity to be present to
0
No. 40333 -1 - II
test the jurors' potential biases. Like Irby, Slert did not have the opportunity to test the jurors
about their potential bias in his presence.
Second, the State cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that excused jurors 19
and 36 were prejudiced against Slert. These jurors' questionnaires and answers are .not in the
record because they were destroyed and no other part of the record demonstrates if they were
prejudiced against Slert or what knowledge of the prior proceedings against him they might have
had. Slert I, 169 Wash. App. at 769 n.6.
Because we cannot review the jurors' answers to the questionnaires and the record does
not explain what, if any, specific answers led the trial court to excuse jurors 19 and 36, the State
cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jurors were prejudiced against Slert. Moreover,
we reject the dissent' s view that the excused jurors' bias can be inferred from the record beyond a
reasonable doubt under the circumstances presented here where the jurors' questionnaires and
answers are unavailable for review. Dissent at 15.
Finally, Miller is factually distinguishable. In Miller, before the jury was sworn and voir
dire conducted, the parties addressed preliminary courtroom security issues including whether and
when Miller needed to be shackled and how close his guards would need to stand during trial. 184
Wn. App. at 640. During a recess, the court and the parties realized that one of the prospective
jurors was in the courtroom during their discussion of courtroom security and excused that
prospective juror in Miller' s absence. Miller, 184 Wn. App. at 640. This court held that any
violation of Miller' s right to be present was harmless because the " potential prejudice —to both
10
No. 40333 -1 - II
Miller and the State — inherent in allowing [ the juror] to remain on the jury after being present
during pretrial motions. was far too great." Miller, 184 Wash. App. at 647. Because of the potential
for prejudice, we concluded that the juror had no chance to *be on Miller' s jury. Miller, 184 Wn.
App. at 647.
Unlike in Miller, the excused jurors here had been sworn and had completed a case -specific
jury questionnaire. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 884; Miller, 184 Wash. App. at 640- 41; Slert I, 169 Wash. App.
at 770. The jury questionnaires here were designed to " test[ ] their fitness to serve as jurors in this
particular case" and not to assess " the general qualifications of . . . potential jurors," as
distinguished from Miller where witnessing pretrial motions and a debate about whether Miller
should be shackled would disqualify any prospective juror in any case. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 882.
The Miller court applied the correct test and concluded that the challenged juror had no chance to
sit on Miller' s jury. 184 Wash. App. at 647. Thus, Miller is factually distinguishable and does not
control the outcome here.
In conclusion, because ( 1) two of the excused jurors were within the range of jurors
ultimately seated on Slert' s jury, (2) their fitness to sit on the jury was never tested by questioning
in Slert' s presence, and ( 3) the State cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that they had
11
No. 40333 -1 - II
no chance to sit on this jury, the violation of Slert' s constitutional right to be present during jury
selection was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse his conviction
and remand for a new trial.
CHANSON, C. J.
I concur:
W( RSWICK, J.
12
No. 40333 -1 - II
MELNICK, J. — ( dissent) I respectfully dissent from the majority' s opinion. The bases for
my disagreement are twofold. First, I believe the harmless error test unequivocally requires
Kenneth Slert to raise the possibility of prejudice and he failed to do so. Second, I believe the
State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation of Slert' s right to be. present was
harmless because the excused jurors had no chance to sit on the jury. I would affirm Slert' s
conviction.
The harmless error test requires a defendant to demonstrate a possibility of prejudice.
Because the claimed error in this case, i.e. the right to be present, is of constitutional magnitude,
the constitutional harmless error test applies. This test states, " if trial error is of constitutional
magnitude, prejudice is presumed and the State bears the burden of proving it was harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt." State v. Coristine, 177 Wash. 2d 370, 380, 300 P.3d 400 ( 2013); see also
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 ( 1967). " Nonetheless,
the defendant must first raise at least the possibility of prejudice." State v. Caliguri, 99 Wash. 2d
501, 509, 664 P.2d 466 ( 1983).
An error is harmless only if we cannot reasonably deduct that the jury would have arrived
at the same verdict in its absence. State v. Franklin, 180 Wash. 2d 371, 383, 325 P.3d 159 ( 2014).
The State must show " beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute
to the verdict obtained." Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24; State v. Stephens, 93 Wash. 2d 186, 190- 91, 607
P.2d 304 ( 1980). State v. Lui, 179 Wash. 2d 457, 528, 315 P.3d 493, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2842,
189 L. Ed. 2d 810 ( 2014). " A constitutional error is harmless if the appellate court is convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable jury would have reached the same result in the
absence of error." Franklin, 180 Wash. 2d at 382. Stated another way, " the error had no effect on
13
No. 40333 -1 - II
Slert' s] conviction for these crimes." See State v. Garcia, 179 Wash. 2d 828, 845, 318 P.3d 266
2014).
Despite the Supreme Court' s direction in Caliguri, 99 Wash. 2d at 509, that the defendant is
required to raise at least the possibly of prejudice during application of the constitutional harmless
error test, the majority does not seem to require such a showing. See Majority at 5. The majority
states that "[ e] ven assuming Slert is required to allege prejudice, he satisfies this burden." Majority
at 5. I respectfully disagree with the majority.
The majority points to State v. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d 874, 246 P.3d 796 ( 2011), for its authority
that when jurors are excluded outside the defendant' s presence; the defendant may not be required
to even raise the possibly of prejudice. The Irby court did not address whether or not a defendant
was required to raise at least the possibility of prejudice. However, I do not believe that the Irby.
court established a new harmless error test or eliminated the long-standing requirement that a
defendant first raise the possibility of prejudice. See Caliguri, 99 Wash. 2d at 509. In fact, the court
in Irby recognized that a violation of a defendant' s right to appear and defend in person may not
be prejudicial to the defendant. 170 Wash. 2d 881. The Irby court noted that it had rejected its earlier
applications of the harmless error test that said prejudice is conclusively presumed when a
defendant' s right to appear and defend in person is violated. 170 Wash. 2d at 886.
We chose to follow instead " the harmless error standard adopted by most
jurisdictions."
The State has not met its burden here.
We say that because the State has
not and cannot show that three of the jurors who were excused in Irby' s absence . .
had no chance to sit on Irby' s jury.... [ Therefore,] [ i]t is no answer to say that
the 12 jurors who ultimately comprised Irby' s jury were objectionable. Reasonable
and dispassionate minds may look at the same evidence and reach a different result.
Therefore, the State cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that the removal of
several potential jurors in Irby' s absence had no effect on the verdict.
14
No. 40333 -1 - II
Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886-.87 ( emphasis added) ( internal citations omitted) ( quoting Caliguri, 99
Wash. 2d at 509).
Furthermore, subsequent to Irby, we have required a defendant to raise the possibility of
prejudice in the context of jury selection outside the defendant' s presence. In State v. Jones, 175
Wn. App. 87, 303 P.3d 1084 ( 2013) ( Wiggins, J.P. T.), the defendant claimed a violation of his
right to appear and defend when the trial court randomly selected alternate jurors from the pool of
accepted jurors outside his presence. We rejected his claim, but further held that if it was error,
the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Jones, 175 Wash. App. at 108. In citing to Irby' s
harmless error test, we stated that " Jones does not demonstrate a possibility of prejudice" during
the random selection of alternate jurors. Jones, 175 Wn. App. at 108. Although Jones involved
the selection of alternate jurors and Irby involved the selection of the actual jurors, this distinction
is not mentioned and is without a difference in regard to the defendant' s need to demonstrate the
possibility of prejudice.
The majority contends that even if Slert were required to allege prejudice, he raises the
issue by his statement that " as in Irby, the prejudice is clear from the record." Majority at 5
quoting Supp. Appellant' s Br. at 6). Again, I respectfully disagree with Slert and the majority.
The possibility of prejudice or harm to Slert is not clear from the record. Slertmust
articulate the prejudice so we can meaningfully review it. He has failed to do so. Failure to point
to the record precludes appellate review. RAP 10. 3( a)( 6); Mills v. Park, 67 Wash. 2d 717, 721, 409
P.2d 646 ( 1966) (" We are not required to search the record for applicable portions thereof in
support of the plaintiffs' arguments."); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wash. 2d 80 1, .
809, 828 P.2d 549 ( 1992).
15
No. 40333 -1 - II
Slert' s assertion that " as in Irby, the prejudice is clear from the record" is without merit.
Br. of Appellant at 6. In Irby, the Supreme Court clearly said the excused jurors were never
questioned at all, let alone about the hardships which excused them. The prejudice in Irby is' that
with questioning, two of the excused jurors may have been able to sit for longer than one week and
one juror, who home -schooled her child(ren), may have been able to sit for three weeks. The court
concluded that the jurors were excused for reasons that may have been invalid. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d
at 886- 87. As will be discussed below, the jurors excused from Slert' s trial were questioned and
they could never have sat on the jury because they were biased. Therefore, unlike in Irby, the
prejudice to Slert is not clear from the record.
Also, we do not conclusively presume prejudice when a defendant' s right to be present has
been violated. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886. The majority states, "[ T] he .alleged prejudice was the
removal of some potential jurors in Slert' s absence." Majority at 5. This statement conclusively
presumes prejudice from Slert' s absence. In the present case, because Slert does not raise a
possibility of prejudice and does not show prejudice, I would affirm his conviction.
Setting aside Slert' s initial burden to raise the possibility of prejudice, I also disagree with
the majority' s conclusion that the State failed to prove that the violation of Slert' s right to be
present was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I would conclude that the State met its burden
under the harmless error test because the jurors excused outside of Slert' s presence had no chance
to sit on the trial.
16
No. 40333 -1 - II
In Irby, the trial court utilized a juror questionnaire. It encompassed questions relating to
both bias and hardship. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 878. The trial court and the attorneys for both sides
reviewed the completed questionnaires. The trial court then sent an e- mail to the attorneys and
suggested that ten specific jurors should be excused. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 877- 78. After further e-
mail exchanges, seven prospective jurors were excused by agreement of counsel. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d
at 878. This activity occurred outside the presence of Irby. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 878. Our Supreme
Court held that the trial court violated Irby' s right to be present during jury selection and the error
was not harmless because three of the seven jurors who had been excused " fell within the range of
jurors who ultimately comprised the jury." Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 886.
In Irby, the court stated that the State " has not and cannot show that three of the excused
jurors " had no chance to sit on [ the] jury." Irby 170 Wash. 2d at 886. The court stated the State did
not meet its burden of proof because the excused jurors' " alleged inability to serve was never tested
by questioning in Irby' s presence. Indeed, they were not questioned at all." Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at
886. The court went on to state that " the questioning might have revealed that one or more of
these potential jurors were not prevented by reasons of hardship from" serving. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d
at 886.
In our case, I believe the State has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the excused
jurors, after questioning, had no chance to sit on the jury. In Irby, like here, the trial court used
juror questionnaires. In Irby, the questionnaires addressed issues ofhardship and bias. In our case,
the questionnaires addressed only bias. In Irby, the court said the excused jurors were not
17
No. 40333 -1 - II
questioned. Here, the jurors were questioned and we know the reasons for the trial court excusing
them. They were biased.
The undisputed evidence is that Slert' s attorney drafted a juror questionnaire which the
State generally accepted.' The two page questionnaire contained only questions that related to the
potential jurors prior knowledge of, involvement with, or opinions about the accusations against
Slert or the prior proceedings. 6 Slert wanted to insure that potential jurors with prior knowledge
of either the facts of the case or of prior proceedings, were asked about it.
The trial court and the attorneys reviewed the completed questionnaires and all agreed to
dismiss the jurors " based simply on their answers." Slert, 181 Wash. 2d at 602. As the dissent in
Slert, 181 Wash. 2d 598, points out, the purpose of the questionnaires " was designed to identify jurors
who may have had a bias due to prior knowledge of the case.... It asked the prospective jurors
questions only about potential bias." Slert, 181 Wash. 2d at 616. The questionnaire was case -
specific. It contained no questions about hardship or other subjects that would lead to the
4 Here, the questionnaires were probing enough that the Supreme Court seemed to consider the
jurors to have been " which was not the case in Irby. In State v. Slert, 181 Wash. 2d 598;
questioned,"
334 P.3d 1088 ( 2014), four justices concurred in the lead opinion, one justice wrote a concurring
opinion, and four justices joined in the dissenting opinion. All of them agreed that the jurors in
Slert were questioned. The lead opinion concluded that the jurors were dismissed " based simply
on their answers." Slert, 181 Wash. 2d at 602. The concurring opinion notes that "the questions were
not used merely as a framework for questioning; they were used to evaluate jurors' fitness to serve
and to excuse jurors for cause." Slert, 181 Wash. 2d at 610. The dissent agrees that this portion of
the proceeding involved questioning of jurors and formed the basis for its objection. Slert, 181
Wash. 2d at 616.
The State asked the court to substitute the term " prior proceeding[ s]" for the term " prior
trial[ s]" that Slert proposed. Report of Proceedings ( Jan. 21, 2010) at 3. The court agreed with
the State.
All of these areas of inquiry are the ones that I refer to as " bias" in this dissent.
18
No. 40333 -1 - II
disqualification of a juror other than bias. In contrast, the questionnaire in Irby involved issues of
both bias and hardship. Some of the potential jurors were clearly excused for reasons other than
bias. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 877- 78
Unlike Irby, where the court said the State " has not and cannot show" the excused jurors
had no chance to sit on [ the] jury," 170 Wash. 2d at 886, here the State could and did prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that the excused jurors had no chance to sit on the jury.
The majority says that the State has not shown harmless error because jurors 19 and 36 had
some chance of sitting on the jury because they " fit within the range ofjurors who were ultimately
seated" on the jury and their fitness was " never tested by questioning in [ Slert' s] presence."
Majority opinion at 5.
The majority specifically holds that jurors 19 and 36 " had a chance to sit" on the jury
because their numbers sequentially fell within those jurors who were selected to hear the case.
Majority at 5. I believe this analysis is a misapplication of Irby. Whether they had a chance to sit
on the jury is based on substantive reasons. Because these jurors, and the other two, were excused
solely based on their answers to questions in the questionnaire, and because the questionnaire
related only to issues of bias and prejudice, I would hold that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the
excused jurors had no chance to sit on the jury. Furthermore, I would hold that the State has met
its burden under the harmless error test.
19
No. 40333 -1 - II
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. I would affirm Slert' s conviction for
murder in the second degree.
MELNICK, I
FIE