In re Pers. Restraint of Serano Salinas
91905-4
| Wash. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- In 2010 Hector Serano Salinas was tried and convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced to life without release; Division One affirmed his conviction on direct appeal except as to one count.
- Defense counsel submitted three juror questionnaires before trial that invited jurors to indicate if they preferred to discuss sensitive answers "privately rather than in open court."
- At voir dire the trial court adopted a questionnaire with similar language, announced an opportunity for private (in-chambers) interviews of jurors who requested it, asked whether anyone objected, received no objections, and conducted individual in-chambers questioning that led to excusal of three jurors for cause.
- Salinas later filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) alleging the in-chambers voir dire violated his public-trial right and that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue on direct appeal; the Court of Appeals granted relief in an unpublished opinion.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review and held that, on these facts, defense counsel invited the closure error and thus Salinas is precluded from raising the public-trial claim; it also held Salinas failed to show prejudice for an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim under Weaver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Salinas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether in-chambers questioning of some prospective jurors violated the public-trial right | Trial court closed voir dire without a Bone-Club analysis, so public-trial right was violated | Closure was invited by defense counsel's questionnaires and oral advocacy; no reversible error | Court: Defense invited the error; claim barred by invited-error doctrine |
| Whether the invited-error doctrine applies to a public-trial closure raised collaterally | Salinas: he did not invite the closure; issue preserved for collateral relief | State: invited-error doctrine precludes raising an error a party induced | Court: Invited-error applies because defense initiated and actively participated in closure |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the public-trial claim on direct appeal | Salinas: failure to raise a structural public-trial error on direct appeal was ineffective assistance; prejudice presumed | State: Even if counsel omitted the issue, Salinas cannot show prejudice because closure was invited and Weaver requires a showing of prejudice on collateral review | Court: Under Coggin and Weaver, no presumption of prejudice on collateral review here; Salinas failed to show actual prejudice |
| Whether remand for a reference hearing is required to develop facts on invited error or counsel’s reasons | Salinas: record may be insufficient to negate invited error or show counsel’s reasons | State: record is adequate; remand unnecessary | Court: No remand; record shows defense initiated and advocated private questioning, so PRP can be decided on existing record |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2017) (structural public-trial errors require a showing of prejudice on collateral ineffective-assistance claims unless the closure caused fundamental unfairness)
- State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (Wash. 1995) (sets five-factor test for courtroom closure)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, 182 Wn.2d 115 (Wash. 2014) (discusses burden on collateral review and the applicability of invited error to public-trial claims)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Morris, 176 Wn.2d 157 (Wash. 2012) (addressing appellate counsel effectiveness where a public-trial issue was not raised on direct appeal)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 (Wash. 2004) (public-trial error and appellate counsel prejudice analysis)
- State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 (Wash. 2009) (invited error doctrine overview)
- State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29 (Wash. 2012) (public-trial right applies to voir dire)