State Of Washington, V Xavier J. Flores
49777-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Late-night hotel disturbance led Officer Clark to encounter Xavier Flores, who allegedly strangled and tried to bite the officer; taser and physical force were used and Flores was arrested.
- State charged Flores with second-degree assault by strangulation with an aggravating circumstance; jury convicted on the lesser-included offense of third-degree assault.
- Before trial the State requested, and the court ordered, Flores be placed in a leg restraint; defense objected but noted prior experience where jurors did not notice restraints.
- Trial court cited seriousness of the charge, Flores’s criminal history, courtroom size/proximity of jury, and security staffing concerns as reasons for the restraint.
- Court took measures to reduce visibility (Flores remained seated on the witness stand before/after testimony until jury left).
- Flores appealed, arguing his right to appear unshackled was violated and raising two additional issues in a SAG (Brady-type claim and unspecified excluded evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flores) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placing Flores in a leg restraint violated his right to appear at trial unrestrained | Trial court allowed leg restraint without an extraordinary-circumstances finding; routine practice in county prejudiced Flores | Court and prosecutor argued security concerns and courtroom logistics justified restraint; precautions taken to hide it | Any error in allowing the leg restraint was harmless because there is no evidence the jury saw or was aware of it; conviction affirmed |
| Whether trial court applied proper legal standard before ordering restraints | Court failed to expressly require "extraordinary circumstances" and may have followed routine practice | Trial court considered relevant factors (seriousness, history, courtroom) and sought to prevent jury awareness | Appellate court noted potential shortcomings but declined to reverse because error, if any, was harmless |
| Brady / withheld evidence claim in SAG | Officer Clark allegedly lied in an earlier case; State withheld that evidence | No such evidence appears in the trial record; claim relies on matters outside record | Cannot review on direct appeal; must pursue personal restraint petition if evidence outside record is needed |
| Alleged failure to allow court/jury to view all evidence in original format (SAG) | Prosecutor prevented review of unspecified evidence | State notes claim is vague and record does not identify excluded items | Claim inadequate under RAP 10.10(c); appellate court will not review due to lack of specificity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792 (1999) (defendant entitled to appear without restraints except in extraordinary circumstances)
- State v. Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d 383 (1981) (restraints permissible only to prevent injury, disorder, or escape)
- State v. Hutchinson, 135 Wn.2d 863 (1998) (factors for restraint decisions; trial court discretion but must be fact-based)
- State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731 (2001) (ordering restraints without balancing or analysis is constitutional error; harmless-error standard applies)
- State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) (direct review cannot consider matters outside the trial record; use personal restraint petition for such claims)