Opinion ID: 1134803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Issue 5: Did the Trial Court Violate Pirtle's Constitutional Rights By Excluding Him From Various In-Chambers Conferences?

Text: Pirtle asserts error by the trial court in engaging in various in-chambers conferences without Pirtle being present. This issue is controlled by well settled law. The core of the constitutional right to be present is the right to be present when evidence is being presented. Lord, 123 Wash.2d at 306, 868 P.2d 835 (citing United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 S.Ct. 1482, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (per curiam)). A defendant has the right to be present at proceedings where his or her presence has a reasonably substantial relation `to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge....' Lord, 123 Wash.2d at 306, 868 P.2d 835 (quoting Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. 1482) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674, 90 A.L.R. 575 (1934)). We have previously held that a defendant does not have a right to be present during in-chambers or bench conferences between the court and counsel on legal matters.... Lord, 123 Wash.2d at 306, 868 P.2d 835. Thus, the fundamental issue here is whether the matters addressed outside Pirtle's presence were matters at which his presence was required. With one exception, all of the proceedings in which Pirtle was absent involved either legal matters, such as the wording of jury instructions, or ministerial matters, such as jury sequestration. As such, Pirtle's presence was not required and any claim of error fails. The one issue in which Pirtle's presence may have been appropriate involved alleged juror misconduct. After the conference, however, Pirtle was apprised of this matter and the issue was heard on the record in Pirtle's presence soon after the issue of alleged misconduct became known. Accordingly, Pirtle has not established his constitutional rights were violated by his absence from various in-chambers conferences between court and counsel. See Lord, 123 Wash.2d at 306, 868 P.2d 835. Lastly, Pirtle has filed a motion for evidentiary hearing and discovery for any factual allegations disputed by the State. The State disputes Pirtle's factual account involving unrecorded conferences. Pirtle asserts that various unrecorded conferences may have involved other factual issues necessitating his presence. The only evidence supporting this contention is a declaration from Pirtle's trial attorney, stating, [i]t is very possible, perhaps likely, that other factual and legal matters were discussed during the enumerated `off the record' conferences. Westerman Decl. at ¶ 11. In contrast, both trial prosecutors insist that the issue was never raised in chambers. State's Response at 48. Thus, since Pirtle has not demonstrated he has competent, admissible evidence establishing facts which would entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on this issue, his request is denied. See Rice, 118 Wash.2d at 886, 828 P.2d 1086.