State of Washington v. Richard Monroe Harding, 31849-4

Victim Julie Hall alleged Richard Harding choked her, threw her down RV steps, and caused a head injury; motel staff and two eyewitnesses corroborated parts of her account.
Harding was charged with second-degree assault—domestic violence; his defense: denial and that Hall fabricated her account (mental illness suggested).
Trial was originally set for July 9, 2013; the day before the court announced a contingent continuance (a trailing-case arrangement) if a higher-priority case proceeded.
On trial day the priority case proceeded; Harding's counsel appeared alone, was excused on the record, and the court routinely reset Harding's trial date without objection.
Before trial the State sought admission under ER 404(b) of two prior domestic-violence incidents (including a 2012 conviction); the trial court admitted the evidence as probative to Hall’s credibility and fabrication claim.
Jury convicted Harding; he appealed claiming (1) public trial right violation from an alleged in-chambers continuance and (2) erroneous admission of ER 404(b) prior-bad-acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether continuing Harding's trial outside his presence violated his public-trial right	State: no closure; continuance was decided in open court previously and was self-executing; no violation	Harding: continuance granted in chambers the day of trial without him, amounting to courtroom closure under Bone-Club	Court: No public-trial violation—contingent continuance was explained on the record; routine reset and excuse of counsel was proper; defendant’s presence not required for continuance
Whether admission of prior domestic-violence acts under ER 404(b) was an abuse of discretion	State: prior acts (conviction and report) were admissible to rebut fabrication and show victim’s state of mind; probative value outweighed prejudice	Harding: highly prejudicial and improperly admitted; trial court failed to make required on-the-record ER 404(b) findings	Court: No abuse—trial court adequately identified purpose and probative value on the record; supporting documents and offer of proof showed misconduct; probative value (impeaching fabrication claim) outweighed prejudice; alternatively any error was harmless given eyewitness corroboration

State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (trial closure factors required when closing proceedings)
State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 (public trial right and Bone-Club framework explained)
State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508 (de novo review for public trial right issues)
State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630 (four-step ER 404(b) test)
State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d 168 (ER 404(b) admission reviewed for abuse of discretion)