Source: http://washapp.org/Opinion.aspx?id=167
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:15:13+00:00

Document:
1 128 Wn.2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
records without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the record custodians.
unpublished portion of this opinion.
at the scene.  Investigation led to Lee and Zerahaimanot.
murder, premeditated murder, and another crime not relevant to this appeal.
suspicious that he was a police officer.  A jury convicted them as charged.
reconsideration of the sealing order at such a hearing is required.
2 U.S. Const. amend. VI.
3 Wash. Const. art. 1, § 22.
4 Wash. Const. art. 1, § 10.
simply to the adversaries but to the criminal justice system.'"
must show a 'serious and imminent threat' to that right.
(citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 505, 104 S. Ct.
819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984)).
State v. Duckett, 141 Wn. App. 797, 803, 173 P.3d 948 (2007); In re Pers.
Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 505)).
7 State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140, 148, 217 P.3d 321 (2009), cert.
denied, 131 S. Ct. 160 (2010).
8 Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 258-59.
given an opportunity to object to the closure.
proponent of closure and the public.
than necessary to serve its purpose."
30, 36-39, 640 P.2d 716 (1982).
12 Momah, 167 Wn.2d at 149.
14 Id. (quoting Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 218-19, 126 S. Ct.
2546, 165 L. Ed. 2d 466 (2006)).
15 Id. at 150, 155-56.
17 Brief of Appellant Zerahaimanot at 20-21.
18 151 Wn. App. 614, 621, 214 P.3d 158 (2009).
public's right to access the court files.
violations constituted structural error, requiring a new trial.
affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds.'"
The error was not structural."
answers to these questionnaires after jury selection.
distinction from the first factor of Coleman.
27 Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
an order sealing the questionnaires.
selection and acceptance by the parties in open court.
of the questionnaires so you can start reading them.
courtroom?  Can we take them?
The Court: Let me think about that.
[Zerahaimanot's Counsel]: Certainly keep them confidential.
decision to deny public access to the completed questionnaires during voir dire.
sending copies of the questionnaires out of the courtroom with the attorneys.
28 Report of Proceedings (Nov. 13, 2008) at 4-5.
an impartial trail court judge (Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S. Ct. 437, 71 L.
(1986)); the right to self-representation at trial (McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S.
(Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984)).
anything like that, and I'm going to want them back" reflects this concern.
questionnaires were unavailable to the public.
located during jury selection, which unquestionably proceeded in open court.
selection.  This is fatal to their claim that the court violated their public trial right.
Nothing in Coleman departs from that guidance.
They next argue that Coleman was overruled sub silentio by State v.
Strode32 and State v. Momah.33 We disagree.
30 Brief of Appellant Zerahaimanot at 33.
31 State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 230, 217 P.3d 310 (2009).
32 167 Wn.2d 222, 217 P.3d 310 (2009).
33 167 Wn.2d 140, 217 P.3d 321 (2009).
34 Strode, 167 Wn.2d at 223; Momah, 167 Wn.2d at 145-46.
35 Strode, 167 Wn.2d at 228.
justices, writing separately, concurred in that result.
the courtroom for voir dire without conducting a Bone-Club analysis.
38 Momah, 167 Wn.2d at 149-50.
of a currently pending petition for review.
issue there, as it was in Coleman.
41 Id. at 236 (Fairhurst, J. and Madsen, J., concurring).
42 Momah, 167 Wn.2d at 150.
trial court to conduct a Bone-Club hearing and to reconsider its closing order.
relevant case law other than Coleman.
the articulated standard.47 No more severe remedy was imposed in that case.
43 97 Wn.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982).
45 See Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 258-59.
46 Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 42-46.
without first conducting a Bone-Club analysis.  That error was not structural.
48 Waldon, 148 Wn. App. at 955-56.
50 Id. at 957, 967.
51 467 U.S. 39, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984).
sealing order under Bone-Club and other relevant authority.
their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. We disagree.
whether the alleged error in fact suggests a constitutional issue.
the court undertakes a harmless error analysis.
57 67 Wn. App. 339, 345, 835 P.2d 251 (1992).
issue for the first time on appeal.
Confrontation Clause and therefore suggests a constitutional issue.
creating hardship on the party or on the custodian or other qualified person . . .
objection to admission of the evidence . . . ."
61 U.S. Const. amend. VI.
under the second factor in Lynn.
generally an exception to the hearsay rules.65  But, the admission of "testimonial"
State v. Monson, 113 Wn.2d 833, 840, 784 P.2d 485 (1989)).
158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).
65 ER 803(6); RCW 5.45.010,.020.
66 Kronich, 160 Wn.2d at 902 (citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-54, 68).
67 Id. (citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-54, 68).
144 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1999)).
69 __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2009).
For example, it explained that affidavits of authenticity are not "testimonial:"
74 Id. at 2532 n.1 (emphasis added).
77 State v. Jasper, ___ Wn. App. ___, 240 P.3d 174 (2010).
be of the type approved by Melendez-Diaz.
records were business records created for the phone companies' administration.
that accurately reproduces the original.
constitutional claims and need not reach the harmless error analysis under Lynn.
permissible.83  Accordingly, we reject this claim.
82 Melendez-Diaz, 129 S. Ct. at 2539.
under RCW 2.06.040, it shall not be published.
process rights by misstating the intent element. They are mistaken.
Here, the jury submitted a question to the trial court during deliberations.
parties, the court gave this answer to the jury.
84 Boeing Co. v. Key, 101 Wn. App. 629, 633, 5 P.3d 16 (2000).
Wn.2d 529, 612, 940 P.2d 546 (1997)).
86 State v. Porter, 150 Wn.2d 732, 735, 82 P.3d 234 (2004).
87 Clerk's Papers (Lee) at 39.
88 Report of Proceedings (Dec. 10, 2008) at 2164.
(5)    That the acts occurred in the State of Washington.
properly answered the jury's question and did not abuse its discretion.
89 Clerk's Papers (Lee) at 61 (emphasis added).
premeditation."90 But this specificity of knowledge is not required.
for any particular degree of murder.
correct statement of the law, we reject this challenge.
90 Brief of Appellant Zerahaimanot at 50.
92 State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32, 43, 750 P.2d 632 (1988).
State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 183 P.3d 267 (2008)).
murder.  Instruction 3 stated that "[a] separate crime is charged in each count.
kidnapping, the underlying crime for their felony murder charges.  We disagree.
94 Clerk's Papers (Lee) at 49.
95 State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 101, 812 P.2d 86 (1991).
State v. Whitfield, 129 Wash. 134, 139, 224 P. 559 (1924)).
another participant, did cause the death of another person . . . .
process rights were not violated.
99 65 Wn. App. 351, 354, 828 P.2d 618 (1992).
102 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).
103 150 Wn.2d 774, 83 P.3d 410 (2004).
104 163 Wn.2d 428, 180 P.3d 1276 (2008).
and do not overrule Hartz.
105 Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 476 (quoting Jones v. United States, 526 U.S.
227, 243 n.6, 119 S. Ct. 1215, 143 L. Ed. 2d 311 (1999).
106 Goodman, 150 Wn.2d at 785-86.
107 Recuenco, 163 Wn.2d at 436, 441.
108 167 Wn.2d 672, 223 P.3d 493 (2009).
109 Id. at 683 (emphasis added).
112 State v. Haddock, 141 Wn.2d 103, 109-10, 3 P.3d 733 (2000).
and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by counting them separately.
117 Haddock, 141 Wn.2d at 110-11.
118 109 Wn.2d 207, 743 P.2d 1237 (1987).
committing unlawful possession of a firearm furthers a murder.
123 141 Wn.2d 103, 111, 3 P.3d 733 (2000).
right to confrontation. We again disagree.
At trial, Lee did not object to the portion of Holt's testimony now at issue.
the alleged error for the first time on appeal.
court statements, as stated below, the Confrontation Clause is implicated.
merit of the Confrontation Clause claim is at issue.
(citing State v. Shafer, 156 Wn.2d 381, 388, 128 P.3d 87 (2006)).
127 Id. (citing Shafer, 156 Wn.2d at 389).
129 Kronich, 160 Wn.2d at 901 (citing Lilly, 527 U.S. at 137).
[PROSECUTOR]:  One final thing I want to ask you about.
been the one that shot him in the head.
a question.  Let me ask a clear question on that.
struggle over the gun, why did he grab the gun.
[HOLT]:  Yes, he said that.
that he believed he was the one that shot Forrest in the head.
said, No, I saw [Lee] shoot him in the head.
[PROSECUTOR]:  Did he take any issue with that?
opportunity to cross-examine him regarding this conversation.
none. We need not address this part of his claim any further.
130 Report of Proceedings (Nov. 25, 2008) at 1034-35 (emphasis added).
131 See State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 403, 945 P.2d 1120 (1997).
132 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968).
statements would be used in later investigating and prosecuting the crime.
right was not violated and Bruton is not applicable.
possession of a firearm and murder were the same criminal conduct.
133 Brief of Appellant Lee at 28-31.
135 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.
duty to object and acted reasonably.
136 McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 336.
that Lee shot Starrett in the head was an assertion of the truth of that statement.
Holt admitted that Zerahaimanot was "foggy" about the events of the shooting.
confusion, not his recollection and agreement with Holt's version of the events.
hearsay.  Therefore, counsel had no duty to object and acted reasonably.
to vacate their merged murder convictions during sentencing. We agree.
404, 103 P.3d 1238 (2005)).
v. Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72, 76, 226 P.3d 773 (2010)).
142 160 Wn.2d 643, 160 P.3d 40 (2007).
146 Id. (citing State v. Gohl, 109 Wn. App. 817, 822, 37 P.3d 293 (2001).
147 Clerk's Papers (Lee) at 20; Clerk's Papers (Zerahaimanot) at 5.
148 113 Wn. App. 482, 54 P.3d 155 (2002).
149 118 Wn. App. 297, 75 P.3d 998 (2003).
conviction.  The State's reliance is misplaced.
odds with the holding in Womac.  As such, it is unpersuasive.
150 112 Wn. App. 390, 49 P.3d 935 (2002).
151 Trujillo, 112 Wn. App. at 411 (emphasis added).

References: art. 1
 § 22
 art. 1
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.