State of Washington v. John J. Munzanreder, 398 P.3d 1160

Background

Defendant John J. Munzanreder was charged and convicted of first‑degree murder for arranging and shooting his wife; a co‑worker, Juan Ibanez, bought the gun, confessed, and testified for the State.
The crime and arrests generated extensive local media coverage; about 82% of the venire had heard of the case and some expressed opinions.
Jury selection used a large venire (243), a detailed agreed juror questionnaire, numerous individual in‑court voir dire interviews, and multiple challenges for cause; the court granted some cause challenges and denied others.
Defendant moved for a change of venue during voir dire; the court denied the motion after voir dire and empaneled a 12‑person jury.
Defendant was convicted of first‑degree murder with a firearm enhancement and sentenced to 340 months; he appealed raising issues about venue, voir dire, state constitutional protection of impartial jury rights, a lesser‑included instruction, and clerical errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Washington Constitution affords greater protection for impartial jury right than Sixth Amendment	State implicitly argued parity with federal standard	Munzanreder argued state constitution (art. I, §§21,22) gives greater protection and urged Gunwall analysis	Court held state right (art. I, §22) provides the same protection as the Sixth Amendment after applying Gunwall factors
Sufficiency of the voir dire process to detect bias	State: voir dire (questionnaire + individual interviews) was adequate and court has discretion	Munzanreder: process was inadequate; biased jurors (identified four) were empaneled and due process required stronger measures	Court held voir dire was sufficient; trial court did not abuse discretion, and defendant had peremptory means to cure any error (and waived some objections)
Denial of change of venue given prejudicial pretrial publicity	State: voir dire showed jurors could be impartial; large venire area and selection process cured publicity	Munzanreder: pervasive inflammatory publicity created a probability of unfairness requiring change of venue	Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion—totality (publicity, voir dire, defendant’s use of peremptories, venire size) supported impartial jury finding
Alleged error in lesser‑included (second degree) to‑convict instruction	State: defendant agreed to instructions or waived error; any error harmless	Munzanreder: instruction had accomplice‑liability wording problem requiring reversal	Court held defendant did not properly preserve reversible error; any error was not manifest and, if present, harmless

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 (1986) (framework for deciding whether state constitution affords greater protection than federal counterpart)
State v. Rivera, 108 Wn. App. 645 (2001) (concluding state and federal impartial‑jury guarantees provide same protection)
State v. Fire, 145 Wn.2d 152 (2001) (treating state and federal impartial‑jury protections as coextensive)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) (review of trial‑court findings of juror impartiality in the face of pretrial publicity)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (pretrial publicity and juror impartiality standard)
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (necessity of strong measures to protect defendant from prejudicial publicity)
State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714 (2007) (peremptory challenges can cure denial of a for‑cause strike)
State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734 (1987) (factors for change of venue analysis)

Affirmed (conviction); remanded for two clerical corrections to the judgment and sentence; appellate costs to State denied.