State v. Njonge, 334 P.3d 1068

Njonge was charged with first-degree murder in 2008 for Jane Britt’s death.
During pretrial, the court refused observers in voir dire for space and fairness reasons.
The court described an overcrowded jury-selection process and contemplated limited seating, including an anteroom option if permitted by the fire marshal.
During voir dire, the court temporarily moved observers and then excluded a TV crew from filming during jury selection.
The Court of Appeals ruled the hardship-excusáis closed the courtroom; this Court granted review on the public-trial issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hardship excusal portion of voir dire implicates the public-trial right	Njonge argues the hardship excusáis were a public proceeding open to observers.	State contends the record does not show a closure and that space management is permissible.	The public-trial right did not require closure; no violation found.
Whether observers were excluded from voir dire during hardship excusáis	Njonge claims observers were barred from part of voir dire.	State asserts there was no conclusive exclusion given space constraints and management.	No conclusive showing of total exclusion; court acted within discretion and no closure.
Whether excluding a family-member witness from voir dire violated the public-trial right	Njonge asserts family witness exclusion affected public access.	State says witness exclusion is courtroom-management discretion, not a public-trial closure.	Exclusion of a witness from voir dire is discretionary and not a public-trial closure; no violation.
Whether excluding a television press crew from voir dire violated the public-trial right	Njonge argues press access during voir dire was a public-trial issue.	State notes media presence was allowed outside voir dire but filming was barred; press access not violated Article I, §22.	Exclusion of filming during voir dire did not violate the public-trial right; press presence not implicated.

State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (1995) (establishes Bone-Club factors for closure and public-trial balancing)
State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 (2005) (public-trial balancing applied beyond evidence-taking)
State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 (2006) (Bone-Club factors applied to closures)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (public-trial right extends to voir dire; First Amendment considerations separate)
Orange v. State, 152 Wn.2d 795 (2004) (public-trial right applies pretrial proceedings;Bone-Club factors used)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (public trial includes voir dire; on-the-record balancing required)
Jasper v. State, 174 Wn.2d 96 (2012) (record must show closure or exclusion; cannot assume facts not in record)
Paumier v. State, 176 Wn.2d 29 (2012) (applies Sublett experience-and-logic test; structural vs non-structural distinction)
Wise v. State, 176 Wn.2d 1 (2012) (public-trial violation can be reviewed on appeal; presumption of prejudice in structural errors)
State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58 (2012) (experiential test for public-trial attachments; governs openness)
State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 (2009) (public-trial protections extend beyond trial to pretrial proceedings)
State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222 (2009) (early public-trial framework; plurality discussions)
State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (2009) (record creation needed to raise public-trial claims on appeal)