334 P.3d 1196
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- In December 2007 Shellye Stark shot and killed her estranged husband; she claimed self‑defense after a history of abuse and had been previously convicted and retried after a reversal.
- At the second trial, jury convicted Stark of first‑degree murder and found she was armed with a firearm; the court also ordered a mental health evaluation as a community custody condition.
- Before closing arguments the trial judge asked spectators not to come and go during closings to avoid disruption, but said those who “really need to” could.
- Detective Kip Hollenbeck testified about his early post‑shooting interview with Stark; on cross he stated Stark “told me what she wanted me to hear and then the conversation was ended,” which defense objected to as opinion on guilt/veracity.
- Stark appealed, arguing (1) the court’s admonition effectively closed the courtroom in violation of public‑trial rights, and (2) the detective’s statement was impermissible opinion testimony; the State conceded the mental‑status community custody condition was unsupported and should be stricken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stark) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge’s request that spectators not come/go during closings amounted to a courtroom closure violating the public‑trial right | The judge’s admonition functionally barred entry/exit and thus closed the courtroom without Bone‑Club findings | The statement was a nonbinding request to limit disruption; spectators were permitted to leave if necessary, so no closure occurred | No closure; admonition was courtroom management, not a Bone‑Club closure; public‑trial right not violated |
| Whether Detective Hollenbeck’s comment that Stark “told me what she wanted me to hear” was improper opinion on guilt/veracity | The comment invaded the jury’s province by implying fabrication and assessing credibility | The comment was a permissible inference from interview evidence and responsive to defense questioning | Not improper; testimony was an inference from evidence and did not directly opine on guilt or veracity; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the community custody condition requiring a mental‑status evaluation was supported by the record | The condition lacked statutory support in the record | The State ultimately conceded the condition was unsupported under RCW 9.94B.080 | Court agreed; remand to strike the community custody mental‑status evaluation condition |
| Remedy and disposition | New trial or reversal for public‑trial violation and evidentiary error | Affirm conviction but remand to correct custody condition | Affirmed conviction; remanded to strike the unsupported community custody condition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2012) (public‑trial right analysis and structural‑error principles)
- State v. Bone‑Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (Wash. 1995) (five‑factor test required before closing proceedings)
- State v. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d 85 (Wash. 2011) (definition of closure: courtroom completely and purposefully closed)
- State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58 (Wash. 2012) (discussion of when closure occurs)
- State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (Wash. 2007) (police witness may not opine on defendant’s veracity)
- City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (opinion testimony based on inferences from evidence can be permissible)