State v. Hogan

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court considers whether the State’s peremptory challenge to juror 40 violated Washington General Rule 37, which addresses race discrimination in jury selection. The court holds that stating “GR 37” can preserve an objection, but defense counsel’s explanation limited the trial-court objection to gender identity and therefore failed to preserve the race-based objection. Exercising its discretion to reach the issue, the court concludes that the State failed to comply with GR 37(i)’s procedures for demeanor-based justifications, but that, considering the permissible reasons and totality of the circumstances, an objective observer could not view race as a factor in the challenge.

Holdings

1. A party can preserve an objection to a peremptory strike under GR 37 by simply stating “GR 37.” However, counsel's additional statement that the objection was based solely on gender identity, rather than race or ethnicity, undermined the citation and failed to preserve the race-based GR 37 objection in this case.
2. The court may exercise its discretion to review a claim of racial bias in jury selection for the first time on appeal, and it did so here.
3. The State's demeanor-based justifications for striking juror 40 could not be considered because the State failed to comply with GR 37(i)'s notice, verification, and corroboration requirements.
4. When a party justifies a peremptory challenge with a reason listed in GR 37(h), the presumptive answer to whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor is yes. The presumption may be rebutted by the totality of the circumstances. Here, the totality of the circumstances rebutted the presumption, so an objective observer could not view race as a factor in the State's strike of juror 40.
5. RAP 10.8 does not limit statements of additional authorities to authorities published after briefing is completed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party preserves a GR 37 objection for appellate review by simply citing GR 37, and whether counsel's additional focus on alleged gender-identity discrimination defeated preservation of a race- or ethnicity-based objection.
2. Whether the Supreme Court could review the race-discrimination claim for the first time on appeal despite ineffective preservation.
3. Whether GR 37(i) barred consideration of the State's demeanor-based justifications because the State failed to provide notice and corroboration.
4. Whether the State's reliance on juror 40's expressed distrust of law enforcement was presumptively invalid under GR 37(h), and whether the totality of the circumstances rebutted that presumption.
5. Whether RAP 10.8 limits statements of additional authorities to authorities issued after briefing was completed.

Disposition

affirmed