State Of Washington v. Jason Lee Planque, 76213-3

Background

Jason Planque (defendant) posted a series of violent, threatening messages to his cousin Jonina’s Facebook timeline amid a bitter family dispute over an estate; Jonina and her father testified they feared for their lives.
Jason was arrested the same day; charged with two counts of felony harassment (for the Facebook posts) and two counts of bail jumping (for failing to appear). A jury convicted on all counts.
At trial the State introduced the Facebook records, testimony from Jonina and Dennis Planque, jail letters written by Jason, and testimony about Jason’s in-custody statements and demeanor. Jason testified he was blackout drunk and lacked memory of posting the messages.
Defense theory: State failed to prove authorship and mens rea given intoxication; Jonina was biased by the family dispute. Defense sought to cross-examine Jonina about a prior Tap Room altercation to show bias; the court excluded that question as beyond the scope or irrelevant.
On appeal Jason raised: (1) violation of the public-trial right by unrecorded sidebars; (2) denial of confrontation/cross-examination by excluding evidence of the Tap Room incident; (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing; and (4) various claims in a pro se Statement of Additional Grounds (SAG), including ineffective assistance and evidentiary complaints. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Planque)	Held
Public-trial right: unrecorded sidebars	Sidebars were routine evidentiary/housekeeping matters that do not implicate the public-trial right; content can be inferred from the record.	Unreported bench conferences were closures of the courtroom requiring reversal as structural error.	Affirmed: sidebars were of a type that do not implicate the public-trial right; record indicates they involved recesses or evidentiary rulings.
Right to cross-examine: exclusion of Tap Room incident	The Tap Room altercation was not relevant to Jonina’s bias toward Jason (Jason was not involved); trial court reasonably limited scope.	Excluding cross-examination about the Tap Room incident prevented showing bias/partiality and violated confrontation/right to present a defense.	Affirmed: trial court did not err—defendant failed to show how the incident was relevant to witness bias; limitation was within court’s discretion.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Prosecutor’s characterization (“I am for real… I have the means to kill you…”) was a reasonable inference from admitted threats across multiple posts, not an assertion of a specific out-of-record quote.	Prosecutor improperly urged the jury to rely on words not in evidence (three repeated statements), warranting reversal.	Affirmed: statements were permissible inferences about the overall message conveyed by the posts; any objection could have been cured by admonition and defense did not object.
SAG / ineffective assistance and other claimed errors	Many SAG allegations rely on facts outside the record; counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice.	Counsel was uncommunicative, inexperienced, or collusive; trial court errors and evidentiary exclusions denied a fair trial.	Affirmed: SAG claims are speculative or outside the record; no sufficient showing of ineffective assistance or prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508 (discusses when sidebars implicate public-trial right and accepts traditional sidebars do not)
State v. Whitlock, 188 Wn.2d 511 (in-chambers conferences that close the courtroom can violate the public-trial right)
State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58 (public-trial right principles and transparency concerns)
State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713 (limits on admissibility and confrontation; relevance requirement for presenting defense)
State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612 (Confrontation Clause: courts have latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (bias of witness is always relevant and may be explored on cross-examination)