State Of Washington, V Brian Lee Streater, 47957-5

In January 2015, Brian Streater entered his ex/partner Kristy Boatner’s apartment, broke a window, left, then returned with a handgun and (according to witnesses) pulled the slide and pointed it; a coworker (Som) disarmed him and Streater assaulted Boatner before leaving.
Streater was tried twice: first trial resulted in convictions for two counts of fourth-degree assault and third-degree malicious mischief; the jury hung on second-degree assault. The second trial addressed only second-degree assault and a firearm enhancement.
At voir dire in the first trial, the court excused several jurors during an untranscribed sidebar (including for-cause excusals); the court later placed a summary on the record identifying excused jurors but not which party sought certain excusals.
At the second trial, the defense requested a lesser-included instruction for unlawful display of a weapon; the court denied it, citing lack of factual support and the statutory place-of-abode exception that precludes unlawful display charges for acts in the defendant’s home.
The second-trial jury found Streater guilty of second-degree assault and specifically found he was "armed with a deadly weapon"; nevertheless the court imposed a 36-month firearm sentencing enhancement. The State concedes the enhancement was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Streater)	Held
Whether striking jurors for cause during an untranscribed sidebar violated the public-trial right	Voir dire and for-cause excusals must be public; closure requires justification	Sidebar excusals did not close the proceeding because questioning was public and the court later memorialized which jurors were excused	No public-trial violation; no closure occurred (court follows State v. Anderson)
Whether trial court erred by refusing lesser-included instruction for unlawful display of a weapon	Instruction improper because facts did not support it and unlawful display is unavailable if conduct occurred in defendant’s abode	Evidence supported an inference of only unlawful display; Workman test satisfied	Instruction properly refused: defendant did not challenge the place-of-abode ground and court relied on that statutory exception; refusal affirmed
Whether imposition of a firearm sentencing enhancement was proper when jury found defendant was armed with a deadly weapon (not a firearm)	Concedes error; asks remand to impose proper deadly-weapon enhancement	Challenges imposition as inconsistent with jury’s special verdict	Court accepts State’s concession: remand to strike firearm enhancement and impose deadly-weapon enhancement

State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (1995) (procedural standards for preserving public-trial right during voir dire)
State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (1978) (two-prong test for lesser-included offense instructions)
State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598 (2015) (three-step framework for public-trial right analysis)
State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874 (2011) (standard of review for public-trial claims)
State v. Anderson, 194 Wn. App. 547 (2016) (no closure where jurors were struck for cause in an untranscribed sidebar later memorialized on the record)
State v. Effinger, 194 Wn. App. 554 (2016) (discussion of when public-trial right attaches to voir dire)
State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wn.2d 889 (2010) (error to impose firearm enhancement when jury finds only deadly-weapon use)