State v. Marks

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that exercising peremptory challenges at sidebar did not violate the constitutional right to a public trial because the courtroom was not closed and the challenged jurors were identified in the public record. The court affirmed Marks's convictions. It remanded for reconsideration of discretionary legal financial obligations because the sentencing court did not conduct the individualized ability-to-pay inquiry required by State v. Blazina.

Holdings

1. No courtroom closure violating the public-trial right occurred because the courtroom remained open, the selected jurors were announced in open court, and the list of challenged jurors was made part of the public record.
2. The superior court must reconsider the discretionary legal financial obligations because the record contained no individualized inquiry into Marks's present and future ability to pay and the boilerplate ability-to-pay findings were inadequate.
3. The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to address the challenge and provide relief because Blazina had not yet been decided when the Court of Appeals decided Marks's case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether exercising peremptory challenges at a sidebar conference during jury selection violated Marks's right to a public trial under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution.
2. Whether the superior court properly imposed discretionary legal financial obligations without conducting an individualized inquiry into Marks's present and future ability to pay.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should reach the legal-financial-obligation issue despite Marks's failure to object at sentencing.

Disposition

remanded