State v. Momah

217 P.3d 321 (Wash. 2009) · Supreme Court of Washington · October 8, 2009 · No. No. 81096-6

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court considered whether closing part of voir dire violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial. The court held that the closure was undertaken to protect the defendant’s right to an impartial jury, was narrowly tailored, and did not constitute structural error requiring reversal. The court affirmed Charles Momah’s convictions.

Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court
C. Johnson, J.; Madsen, J.; Owens, J.; Fairhurst, J.; Penoyar, J.P.T.
Jurisdiction
Washington
Decision date
October 8, 2009
Docket number
No. 81096-6
Procedural posture
Criminal defendant appealed to the Washington Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals, Division One affirmed his convictions, arguing that the trial court violated his constitutional public-trial right by conducting portions of voir dire privately.
Standard of review
Whether the constitutional right to a public trial was violated is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Charles Momah v. State of Washington
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurejury selectionsixth amendmentconstitutional law

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether conducting portions of voir dire in chambers and in a jury room violated Momah's constitutional right to a public trial under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution and the Sixth Amendment.
  2. Whether the closure was structural error requiring automatic reversal and a new trial.
  3. How the public-trial right should be harmonized with the accused's right to an impartial jury when the defendant participated in and benefited from the closure.

Holdings

  1. The closure of a portion of voir dire was not structural error requiring reversal because it was undertaken to protect Momah's right to an impartial jury, was narrowly tailored, and was affirmatively accepted, supported, and participated in by the defense.
  2. Not all courtroom-closure errors are structural; automatic reversal is required only when the error necessarily renders the criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.
  3. When the two rights are implicated, a trial court may consider and accommodate the accused's right to an impartial jury in determining whether a limited closure is appropriate.

Key quotations

We hold the closure in this case was not a structural error and affirm Charles Momah's conviction. (217 P.3d at 321)
To determine if closure is appropriate, we apply closure guidelines drawn from Waller's approach. (217 P.3d at 325-26)
We hold the closure in this case was not a structural error. (217 P.3d at 329)

Factual background

Charles Momah, a gynecologist, was prosecuted for sexually violating patients during physical examinations. Because the case received extensive media publicity, more than 100 prospective jurors were summoned, and the trial court privately questioned jurors who had prior knowledge of the case, requested private questioning, or indicated they could not be fair. Defense counsel participated in and supported the individual questioning, which allowed the defense to exercise numerous challenges for cause.

Procedural history

Momah was charged in King County Superior Court and convicted by a jury of one count of third-degree rape, two counts of indecent liberties, and one count of second-degree rape. The trial court imposed a standard-range sentence of 245 months. The Court of Appeals, Division One affirmed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…