In re the Detention of Reyes
184 Wash. 2d 340
| Wash. | 2015Background
- Rolando Reyes faced a civil petition under Washington’s SVP statute (ch. 71.09 RCW); the State refiled the petition after new sexual-assault convictions and sought commitment to the DSHS Special Commitment Center.
- Reyes moved to dismiss pretrial, and the court heard oral argument in chambers with the attorney general’s office appearing by phone (apparently unaware the hearing was in chambers); the record does not show the court conducted the required on-the-record Ishikawa closure inquiry.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss; a few days later a bench trial found Reyes an SVP and ordered civil commitment.
- On appeal Reyes argued the in-chambers pretrial hearing closure violated the Washington Constitution’s public-trial guarantee (art. I, § 10) and amounted to structural error requiring automatic reversal and a new commitment trial.
- The Court considered whether structural-error analysis applies to civil SVP proceedings and whether the improperly closed pretrial hearing warranted reversal of the commitment judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an in-chambers pretrial hearing closed without an Ishikawa analysis violates the public-trial right | Closure violated art. I, § 10 because the Ishikawa factors were not addressed on the record | Agreed a closure occurred and Ishikawa analysis was required but disputed remedy | Court: closure without Ishikawa occurred and implicated the public-trial right |
| Whether such a closure in a civil SVP proceeding constitutes structural error requiring automatic reversal | Closure is structural error in quasi‑criminal SVP proceedings; reversal required | Structural error doctrine is limited to criminal trials; SVP proceedings are civil, so structural-error remedy inapplicable | Court: structural-error doctrine does not apply to civil SVP commitments; reversal not automatic |
| Appropriate remedy when a pretrial hearing (separable from trial) is closed without Ishikawa findings | New SVP commitment trial is required | When the closed proceeding is separable and did not affect trial evidence/outcome, reversal is inappropriate; remedy should fit the violation | Court: because the closed pretrial motion hearing was separable and did not affect the commitment trial or evidence, Reyes is not entitled to a new commitment hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 (establishing five-factor test for courtroom closure)
- State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508 (three-step framework for public-trial right analysis)
- In re Det. of D.F.F., 172 Wn.2d 37 (fractured decision addressing closure and remedies in civil commitment cases)
- State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 (discussing public-trial violations and remedies)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. Supreme Court: remedy for closed suppression hearing in criminal case)
- State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (declining Waller’s limited remedy under state constitution)