255 P.3d 753
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Njonge was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder following jury trial.
- Njonge challenged the voir dire closure, claiming his Sixth Amendment public-trial right was violated when the courtroom was closed during part of voir dire.
- Pretrial: the State moved to exclude witnesses from voir dire; the court ruled witnesses would not be present, citing space constraints and fairness concerns.
- The court announced voir dire would proceed with a rearranged layout; observers could potentially observe from an entry area, subject to fire marshal approval, but the court warned observers that seating would be limited.
- During voir dire, after hardship-based excusals, the court moved some observers into seating in the second row; the record shows no express closure order or objection on record.
- The trial court did not separately analyze Bone-Club factors on the record; the court later acknowledged the morning voir dire was effectively closed to the public.
- The appellate court reversed the conviction, remanding for a new trial, holding that the Bone-Club framework applied and was not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire closure violated the public-trial right | Njonge argues closure without Bone-Club analysis violated public trial. | State contends no explicit closure order or prejudice shown. | Closure violated public trial; remand for new trial. |
| Whether public-trial review requires an express closure order or objecting | Njonge need not object to preserve review per Momah and related cases. | State argues lack of express closure bars review. | Review permitted; no need for express closure or objection. |
| Whether Bone-Club factors were analyzed on the record | Bone-Club factors not weighed; closure improper. | Record insufficient to show closure; alternative explanations possible. | Bone-Club analysis required; record failed to apply it. |
| Whether alternatives to closure were considered | Court could have accommodated the public with less restrictive options. | Space and security concerns limited options; alternatives not adequately weighed. | Court failed to explore less restrictive alternatives; reversal warranted. |
| What remedy is appropriate | Reversal and remand for new trial appropriate to cure public-trial violation. | Not addressed; procedural remedy unclear. | Reverse and remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash.2d 254 (1995) (five-factor Bone-Club test for closure of proceedings)
- State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167 (2006) (requires findings to justify closure; Bone-Club framework applied)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wash.2d 795 (2004) (space/security closures analyzed under public-trial standards)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (public-trial rights require meaningful consideration of alternatives)
- Brightman v. State, 155 Wash.2d 506 (2005) (public-trial analysis; emphasis on trial-court ruling language)
- State v. Momah, 141 Wash. App. 705 (2007) (review of public-trial issue raised for first time on appeal allowed)