Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the record did not establish that the trial court closed the courtroom during hardship excusals in jury selection, and therefore no public trial violation was shown. The court also held that excluding a victim's family-member witness from voir dire was a discretionary courtroom-management decision, and that barring television filming of voir dire did not violate the defendant's public trial right. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of the defendant's remaining claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether RAP 2.5(a) barred appellate review of Njonge's public-trial claim because he did not object at trial.
- Whether the record established that the courtroom was closed to the public during hardship excusals in voir dire.
- Whether excluding a victim's family-member witness from voir dire violated the public-trial right.
- Whether excluding a television press crew from filming voir dire violated the public-trial right.
Holdings
- A defendant's failure to contemporaneously object to an alleged public-trial violation does not preclude appellate review under RAP 2.5(a).
- The record did not establish that the trial court closed the courtroom to the public during hardship excusals; therefore, Njonge did not establish a public-trial violation.
- Excluding a witness from voir dire was a matter of trial-court discretion rather than a closure implicating the public-trial right, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it provided adequate reasons for the exclusion.
- The trial court's decision to exclude a television camera crew from filming voir dire did not constitute a closure violating the public-trial right because the courtroom remained open to the public and the ruling restricted filming rather than media presence.
Key quotations
“We continue to hew to our well-reasoned and long-standing precedent and hold that a defendant’s failure to contemporaneously object to a public trial violation does not preclude appellate review under RAP 2.5(a).” (555)
“On this record, while it cannot be determined conclusively that observers were in the courtroom during the proceeding in question, neither can it be said that the public was excluded.” (558)
“For this reason, the exclusion of a witness from voir dire should be treated as a matter of court discretion and not as a closure implicating the public trial right.” (560)
Factual background
Joseph Njonge was charged in 2008 with first degree murder arising from the death of Jane Britt, the spouse of a resident at the assisted living facility where Njonge worked. During jury selection, the trial court addressed severe courtroom-space limitations, conducted hardship excusals, excluded a victim's family member who was also expected to testify, and barred a television crew from filming voir dire while allowing filming after jury selection. The record did not establish that spectators were actually excluded from the courtroom during the hardship-excusal process.
Procedural history
Njonge was charged with first degree murder and was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial court improperly closed the courtroom during hardship excusals in voir dire. The Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the Court of Appeals to consider Njonge's remaining assignments of error, including other public-trial claims that were not included in Supreme Court review.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals was instructed to address Njonge's remaining assignments of error, including claims not reached below and not included in the Supreme Court's limited grant of review.