In Re Pers. Restraint of Speight ( 2014 )

• 7T,~
~· --
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Personal )
Restraint of ) No. 89693-3
)
ROLAND ARTHUR SPEIGHT, )
)
Petitioner. )
) Filed DEC 1 1 2014
C. JOHNSON, I.-Petitioner Ronald Speight filed a timely personal
restraint petition, claiming for the first time on collateral review that his right to a
public trial under article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution, was
violated when the trial court decided motions in limine and individually questioned
potential jurors in chambers. 1 While Speight's pubic trial right claim has merit, his
petition must be denied. Consistent with our holding in In re Personal Restraint of
Coggin, No. 89694-1 (Wash. Dec. 11, 2014), a petitioner claiming a public trial
1
This case was certified to this court by Division One of the Court of Appeals with In re
Personal Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1 (Wash. Dec. 11, 2014). Both cases present the same
central issue but were not consolidated.
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight, No. 89693-3
right violation for the first time on collateral review must show actual and
substantial prejudice. Speight cannot show actual and substantial prejudice arising
from the closure; therefore, his petition is denied.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 3, 2004, Speight drove Kelly Nixon to an inn where Speight
was performing routine maintenance as a caretaker. While at the inn, Speight
forced Nixon into oral and vaginal intercourse, resulting in torn clothing and
injuries to Nixon's face and leg.
Speight was charged with second degree rape in San Juan County. At the
beginning of jury selection, the judge had jurors fill out questionnaires regarding
any experiences they may have had with a sexual offense. While the jurors were
filling out these questionnaires, the trial judge, counsel, the clerk, the sheriffs
deputy, and the court reporter went into the judge's chambers for motions in
limine. Then, in response to the juror's answers to the questionnaires, 14
prospective jurors were questioned in chambers without the court engaging in the
analysis required by State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
Several prospective jurors were then excused or dismissed for cause.
2
In re Pers. Restraint ofSpeight, No. 89693-3
Speight was convicted of second degree rape, and in 2006, the Court of
Appeals affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion. 2 Speight filed a timely
personal restraint petition in 2007, arguing that his right to a public trial was
violated during the in-chambers conference regarding the motions in limine and the
individual questioning ofjurors. 3 Division One stayed the petition multiple times,
pending decisions by this court. Division One of the Court of-Appeals then
certified the case to this court in December 2013, alongside Coggin.
ANALYSIS
Speight claims that he was denied his constitutional public trial right during
pretrial in-limine rulings and the jury selection process. A criminal defendant has a
rig;ht to a public trial as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions. U.S.
CONST. amend. VI; WASH. CoNST. art. I, § 22 (providing "the accused shall have
the right ... to have a speedy public trial"); State v. Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d 29, 34,
28~ P.3d 1126 (2012).
---------····---
2
,State v. Speight, noted at 136 Wash. App. 1006 (2006).
3
In his opening brief, Speight asserts that his article I, section 22 rights to a public trial
and the public and J)ress' s article I, section 10 rights to a public trial were violated. WASH.
CONST. art. I, §§ 10, 22. However, Speight does not further analyze whether the public's right
was violated during the individual questioning of jurors or when the motions in limine were
decided in chambers. Therefore, we will analyze only the public trial right issue under article I,
section 22.
3
In re Pers. RestraintofSpeight, No. 89693-3
We have repeatedly held that the public trial right applies to jury selection.
Specifically, it is well established that the public trial right in voir dire proceedings
e)~.tends to the qlJestioningof individual prospective jurors. State v. Wise, 176
Wash. 2d i, 16':'19, 288.1).3d 1113 (2012). While the right to a public trial is not
absolute, the trial court here did not conduct the analysis required by Bone-Club
~ither implicitly or explicitly and therefore, the closure violated the defendant's
right to a public trial. The State argues that the closure satisfies the five factors
required by Bone-Club, but "[a] trial court is required to consider the Bone-Club
factors before closing a trial proceeding that should be public." Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at
12 (citing Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d at 261). From the record, the trial court did not
'
consider any of these factors in its decision whether to question individual jurors in
chambers. Moreover, a trial court should '"resist a closure motion except under the
mostunusual circumstances."' Wise, 17 6 Wash. 2d at 11 (quoting Bone-Club, 128
\~n.2d at 259). Here, the defendant's constitutional right to a public trial was
. '
violated.
We have not yet addressed whether a closure occurs when a trial judge
discusses and rules on motions in limine in chambers. This court uses the
experience and logic test to evaluate whether a particular proceeding implicates the
public trial right. State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 73, 292 P.3d 715 (2012). In State
4
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight, No. 89693-3
v. Smith, 181 Wash. 2d 508, 334 P.3d 1049 (2014), we alluded to the fact that
evidentiary motions may not implicate the public trial right, but because sidebars,
and not evidentiary conferences, were at issue in that case we did not decide
definitively one way or the other. See Smith, 181 Wash. 2d at 512 n.3 ("Although the
parties disagreed about whether to characterize these hallway conferences as
'sidebars' or something else, we analyze them as sidebars here because that is the
role these conferences played in the trial. The analysis would not change for on the
record evidentiary conferences in chambers."). Since jurors were privately
questioned, a closure occurred, and we need not decide whether a second closure
exists in this case.
Because Speight's public trial right violation has merit, we must determine
whether he must show that he was actually and substantially prejudiced by the
violation. We addressed the issue-whether actual and substantial prejudice must
be shown from a public trial right violation in order to obtain relief by personal
restraint petition-in Coggin. Because the issue is identical and the facts are
similar, we incorporate the reasoning from that case here. To summarize,
generally, for a petitioner to prevail on collateral review, the petitioner must
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the constitutional error worked to
his actual and substantial prejudice. In re Pers. Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wash. 2d
5
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight, No. 89693-3
321, 328, 823 P.2d 492 (1992). We carved out an exception to this general rule in
In re Personal Restraint ofMorris, 176 Wash. 2d 157, 166, 288 P.3d 1140 (2012),
where we held that we will presume prejudice for a petitioner who alleges a public
trial right violation through an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.
But in Coggin we refused to extend this exception any further and held that our
interest in finality required us to draw a line and not presume prejudice when a
petitioner raises a public trial right violation for the first time on collateral review.
Coggin, slip op. at 10. Therefore, in Coggin we held that a petitioner claiming a
public trial right violation for the first time on collateral review must comply with
the general nlle for personal restraint petitions and show actual and substantial
prejudice.
As a result, Speight can prevail only if he can show that the public trial right
violation actually and substantially prejudiced him. Speight does not argue that he
was actually and substantially prejudiced, nor do the facts suggest that he was. As
a result of the individual questioning, he likely received a more fair trial and an
impartial jury.
6
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight, No. 89693-3
CONCLUSION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR:
\(~ ):r,p,;
7
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight (Roland Arthur)
No. 89693-3
MADSEN, C.J. (concurring)-Like in the companion case, In re Personal
Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1 (Wash. Dec. 11, 2014), I agree with the lead opinion's
decision to deny Roland Speight's personal restraint petition, but for different reasons.
First, I believe that this court must decide whether motions in limine implicate the public
trial right, and I would decide this question in the negative. Second, I would hold that
Mr. Speight invited the judge to conduct portions of voir dire in chambers. Thus, in
contrast to the lead opinion and in line with my concurrence in Coggin, I believe we need
not determine the prejudice showing required of personal restraint petitioners.
Nevertheless, because guidance is needed I would agree with the majority that the
error here, failure to engage in the analysis outlined in State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d
254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995), requires a petitioner in a personal restraint petition to prove
prejudice unless he can demonstrate that the error in his case '"infect[ ed] the entire trial
process"' and deprive the defendant of "'basic protections,"' without which '"no criminal
No. 89693-3
Madsen, C.J. concurring
punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair."' Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1,
8-9, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1999) (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,
578, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 92 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1986)).
Discussion
In contrast to the companion case, here the petitioner alleges two different public
trial right violations. First, he challenges the trial court's decision to hear argument on
motions in limine in chambers rather than in the courtroom, alleging that this behavior
implicated his right to a public trial. While venire members were filling out
questionnaires in the courtroom, the parties and the judge discussed motions in limine on
the record in chambers. The State moved to bar the defendant from inquiring about the
alleged victim's drug convictions. The defense brought several motions, including
motions for the State to disclose certain information, to exclude mention of prior contact
between the defendant and complainant, and to exclude mention of the defendant's
mental disorder. In addition to challenging the judge's consideration of these motions in
limine in chambers, Mr. Speight also makes an identical argument to William Coggin,
namely that the in-chambers voir dire questioning of some venire members violated his
public trial rights. In particular, the trial court conducted voir dire in chambers for 14
prospective jurors who had indicated a preference for private questioning on their written
questionnaire.
2
No. 89693-3
Madsen, C.J. concurring
In State v. Smith, this court outlined a three step inquiry to assess alleged public
trial right violations. 181 Wash. 2d 508, 513,334 P.3d 1049 (2014) (citing State v. Sublett,
176 Wash. 2d 58, 92, 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (Madsen, C.J., concurring)). We first consider
whether the public trial right is even implicated and only then determine whether there
was in fact a closure and, if so, whether that closure was justified. I d. The lead opinion
acknowledges this framework but does not use it to evaluate the petitioner's motion in
limine challenge. Lead opinion at 4-5. Instead, the lead opinion reasons that "[s]ince
jurors were privately questioned, a closure occurred, and we need not decide whether a
second closure exists in this case." Lead opinion at 5. I disagree with this analysis. The
petitioner raises two separate public trial right violations, each of which must be
separately analyzed. Before reaching the question of whether petitioners must prove
prejudice for collateral challenges to public trial rights, this court should consider, first,
whether the petitioner may be precluded from bringing the challenge due to invited error
or affirmative waiver and, second, following the three step analysis, whether his public
trial rights were violated.
Turning first to the motion in limine issue, I would hold that under the first prong
of the Smith analysis, motions in limine do not implicate public trial rights. As the lead
opinion recognizes, under Smith's first step we use "the experience and logic test to
evaluate whether a particular proceeding implicates the public trial right." Lead opinion
at 4 (citing Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d at 73).
3
No. 89693-3
Madsen, C.J. concurring
"The first part of the test, the experience prong, asks 'whether the place and
process have historically been open to the press and general public.'" Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d
at 73 (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court (Press II), 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct.
2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986)). Motions in limine concern interlocutory pretrial decisions
made by the trial court, typically involving legal questions about the admissibility of
certain evidence. Often these pretrial decisions will be revisited during the course of
proceedings as the evidence develops. As with rulings on contemporaneous objections to
evidence, motions in limine are decided outside the hearing of the jury. See ER 103.
In Smith, this court applied the experience and logic test to hold that sidebar
conferences involving evidentiary rulings on contemporaneous objections do not
implicate the public trial right. Smith, slip op. at 6-14. There, we noted the history of
conducting sidebars out of view of the public and the practical difficulties with removing
jurors from a courtroom. Id. at 7-8. The reasoning in Smith applies here. During voir
dire in Speight's case, the venire members were using the courtroom to fill out juror
questionnaires before counsel began voir dire questioning in court. The trial judge used
this downtime to discuss motions in limine in chambers rather than moving jurors in and
out of the courtroom multiple times.
The second part of the test, the logic prong, asks '"whether public access plays a
significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.'" Sublett,
176 Wash. 2d at 73 (quoting Press II, 478 U.S. at 8). "The guiding principle [for the logic
prong] is 'whether openness will enhance[] both the basic fairness of the criminal trial
4
No. 89693-3
Madsen, C.J. concurring
and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system."' Smith,
slip op. at 6-7 (second alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting
Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d at 75). For motions in limine, I believe the answer to these questions
is no. In Smith, this court reasoned that sidebars do not "invoke any of the concerns the
public trial right is meant to address regarding perjury, transparency, or the appearance of
fairness." Smith, slip op. at 12. Specifically, we noted that the sidebars at issue were
immediately recorded and made available to the public and emphasized the dense legal
nature ofthe questions considered during such discussions. Id. at 12-13. The same
reasoning applies in the motion in limine context. Here, the motions in limine considered
in chambers were contemporaneously recorded verbatim. Thus, the public was not
denied access to the proceedings. As with sidebars, the presence of the public would not
have added anything to the discussion between the judge and counsel regarding questions
of admissibility under the rules of evidence.
Applying the experience and logic test, I would hold that as long as these
discussions occur on the record and concern primarily evidentiary matters, the public trial
right does not attach.
Turning to petitioner's second public trial right allegation, I would hold that Mr.
Speight invited the error of conducting voir dire interviews in chambers. As I outline in
my concurrence in the companion case Coggin, in the voir dire context the key inquiry is
whether the defendant '"actively participated"' in the conduct that led to the error.
Coggin, slip op. (concurrence) at 2-3 (quoting State v. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d 1, 15 n.8, 288
5
No. 89693-3
Madsen, C.J. concurring
P.3d 1113 (2002)). In State v. Momah, we reasoned that invited error principles applied
where defense counsel agreed beforehand to a juror questionnaire that permitted
individual questioning, never objected to the proposal to conduct this questioning in
chambers (presumably because the private questioning benefited his client), and actively
participated in the questioning. 167 Wash. 2d 140, 145-46, 153-56, 217 P.3d 321 (2009);
see also Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 15 n.8 (reaffirming that defendants can invite public trial
violations, pointing to factors outlined in Momah). Similarly, here defense counsel
participated in a pretrial telephone conference between the parties and the judge where
they discussed the creation of a juror questionnaire that would allow jurors to note a
preference for private questioning. Defense counsel then participated in the questioning
of the 14 jurors that occurred in chambers without raising any objection. Though the
language ofthe questionnaire did suggest an "in court" private questioning experience to
the potential jurors, the totality of the circumstances demonstrate that the in-chambers
questioning was in line with defense counsel's expectations following the pretrial
telephone call. Defense counsel did more than simply acquiesce to the trial court's
decision to conduct questioning in chambers; he spoke with opposing counsel and the
judge about the need for a mechanism for private voir dire questioning, agreed to the
questionnaire proposed by the prosecutor, did not question the judge's decision to hold
that private questioning in chambers, and in fact engaged in questioning the prospective
jurors. By all accounts, defense counsel "actively participated" in the in chambers
questioning of jurors and consequently invited the public trial error that resulted.
6
No. 89693-3
Madsen, C.J. concurring
In sum, I would address petitioner's motion in limine challenge but would hold
that under our experience and logic test, motions in limine do not implicate public trial
rights. I would also dismiss petitioner's challenge to the voir dire procedure on invited
error grounds and thus would not reach the question of prejudice considered by the
majority. I concur in the majority's decision to deny Mr. Speight's petition.
7
No. 89693-3
Madsen, C.J. concurring
8
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight (Roland Arthur)
No. 89693-3
STEPHENS, J. (dissenting)-This case turns largely on the same issue as In
re Personal Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1 (Wash. Dec. 11, 2014): whether a
personal restraint petitioner who suffered a violation of his right to a public trial
should be denied a new trial when the petitioner does not also allege ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. I would hold that personal restraint petitioners
should not have to make a special showing of prejudice beyond establishing the
prejudice of structural public trial error. The reasoning and facts in both cases on
this issue do not differ, so I incorporate the reasoning from my dissent in Coggin
here. Because the lead opinion in both cases "requires personal restraint petitioners
to prove the impossible, and because its holding erodes the promise of open justice
in our courts, I respectfully dissent." Slip op. (dissent) at 2.
I also point out that because I would grant William Speight's personal restraint
petition on the basis of the improper voir dire closure, it is unnecessary for me to
consider whether the closed motion in limine hearing also warrants a new trial. The
lead opinion does not have this luxury, though it practically ignores the motion in
limine issue. Lead opinion at 4-5. Having determined that the closure of individual
voir dire constituted a public trial violation, the lead opinion moves to the prejudice
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight (Roland Arthur), 89693-3 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
issue and finds no prejudice. I d. at 5-6 (citing Coggin, slip op. at 10). It concludes
that Speight was not actually and substantially prejudiced because "[a]s a result of
the individual questioning, he likely received a more fair trial and an impartial jury."
Id. at 6.
The individual questioning of jurors took place after the motions in limine
were heard, so whatever prejudice might have occurred from the closed motion
hearing would already have tainted the trial before voir dire began. Thus, the lead
opinion needs to address the motions hearing, not only as to prejudice but as to
whether the public trial right attaches to such a hearing. Its conclusion that the closed
voir dire was not prejudicial because it likely benefited Speight is insufficient; how
did the closed motion hearing work to his benefit? 1 The lead opinion's prejudice
analysis is incomplete under its own post hoc analysis and provides no basis to
dismiss this personal restraint petition in its entirety. See Coggin, slip op. (dissent)
at 9 n.2 (explaining that the lead opinion's prejudice analysis constitutes a post hoc
appellate Bone-Club2 inquiry).
1
The State claims that the motions in limine occurred in chambers because the
venire was completing questionnaires in the courtroom. Resp. toPers. Restraint Pet. at 4.
So, it might be argued that the closure facilitated selecting an impartial jury because the
closure shielded prospective jurors from exposure to potentially inadmissible evidence.
This argument fails because the "purpose of a motion in limine is to dispose oflegal matters
so counsel will not be forced to make comments in the presence of the jury which might
prejudice his presentation." State v. Evans, 96 Wash. 2d 119, 123, 634 P.2d 845 (1981). The
venire could have filled out questionnaires elsewhere while the court considered the
motions in limine in open court. See In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wash. 2d 795, 810,
100 P.3d 291 (2004) (concerns stemming from "courtroom management and convenience"
without consideration of the public trial right was insufficient to justify closure of voir
dire).
2
State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
-2-
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight (Roland Arthur), 89693-3 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
-3-
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight (Roland Arthur), 89693-3 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
4