State Of Washington, V Kenneth E. Barrett, 75630-3

Barrett was charged with malicious mischief; after failing to appear at a scheduled status conference, the State added a bail-jumping count and tried him on that charge.
Barrett is legally blind, testified he could not read court papers, and claimed he did not know the November 12 hearing time; he conceded signing documents and discussing them with the judge and his attorney.
A deputy prosecutor testified about routine court procedures: hearings are announced in court and in written notices, and continuances are discussed on the record.
During voir dire the court held a bench sidebar recommending excusal of four jurors; the sidebar was not transcribed, but the judge immediately summarized the discussion on the record and both parties accepted the summary.
Prosecutor argued in closing that Barrett had notice of the court dates because he signed documents and discussed them with the judge; defense counsel did not object.
Jury convicted Barrett of bail jumping; he appealed asserting prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance for failure to object, and violation of his public-trial right by sidebar excusals.

Issue	Barrett's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct (closing)	Prosecutor improperly asserted Barrett had been told his court date by the judge, misstating evidence	Prosecutor made reasonable inferences from testimony that dates were announced and Barrett signed/was told	No misconduct: comments were reasonable inferences from testimony and not flagrant; waived absent objection
Ineffective assistance for failure to object	Defense counsel ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor's closing remarks	Counsel's failure to object was strategic and reasonable because remarks were proper; objection likely would fail	No deficient performance: remarks were not improper, so no Strickland relief
Public-trial right (sidebar during voir dire)	Sidebar excusing jurors closed courtroom and violated right to public trial	Sidebars that are promptly placed on the record and did not conceal juror questioning do not constitute closure	No violation: sidebar followed by immediate on-the-record summary; analogs in Supreme Court and Division Two control
Prejudice standard where no contemporaneous objection	Barrett contends prejudice from unobjected-to remarks affected verdict	State: absent objection, defendant must show comments were flagrantly prejudicial and incurable	No prejudice shown; Barrett failed heightened showing required when no contemporaneous objection

State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598 (2015) (sidebar during voir dire that was not a transcripted exchange did not close courtroom where process remained open and public could evaluate empaneled jury)
State v. Anderson, 194 Wn. App. 547 (2016) (holding lack of verbatim sidebar transcript does not render sidebar a courtroom closure when trial court promptly places sidebar rulings on the record)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (standard for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct and requirement for heightened showing when no contemporaneous objection)
State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d 559 (2003) (attorneys may argue facts in evidence and reasonable inferences in closing)