340 P.3d 207
Wash.2014Background
- Speight, on collateral review, asserts a public trial right violation under Wash. Const. art. I, § 22 due to in-chambers motions in limine and private juror questioning.
- The trial events occurred while venire members filled out questionnaires; motions in limine were debated in chambers without public analysis required by Bone-Club.
- Jurors were questioned in chambers based on questionnaire responses; several prospective jurors were dismissed for cause.
- Speight was convicted of second-degree rape; CA affirmed; he filed a personal restraint petition in 2007, with COCA certification in 2013.
- Washington courts apply Coggin to require a showing of actual and substantial prejudice for public trial claims raised on collateral review.
- Majority denies petition because Speight cannot show actual and substantial prejudice from the closure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the public trial right attach to motions in limine in chambers and private voir dire? | Speight argues closure violated public trial right | State argues Bone-Club factors govern; not all closures implicate public trial | Yes, closure implicated public trial rights |
| Whether the in-chambers voir dire constitutes a second closure beyond the motions in limine | Speight asserts two public-trial violations require separate analysis | State treats privately questioned jurors as closure event(s) | Two violations identified; closure of voir dire occurred, separate from motions in limine |
| Whether Speight must show actual and substantial prejudice on collateral review | Coggin requires prejudice on first-time collateral review claims | General rule requires prejudice; but Coggin excludes presumptions | Speight must show actual and substantial prejudice; none shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 (2012) (public trial right extends to voir dire)
- In re Personal Restraint of Coggin, 182 Wn.2d 115 (2014) (first-time public-trial claims on collateral review require actual prejudice)
- State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58 (2012) (experience and logic test for public-trial implications)
- State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508 (2014) (three-step Smith analysis for public-trial violations; sidebars context)
- State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (1995) (Bone-Club factors required before closing a public proceeding)
- In re Personal Restraint of Morris, 176 Wn.2d 157 (2012) (presumption of prejudice for some collateral-review claims)
- State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 (2009) (invited-error principles in voir dire)
- State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 (2002) (invited participation factors in public-trial analyses)