Court Opinion

ID: 9541265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:24:00.994217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:41.886969
License: Public Domain

Baker, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion reverses Jackson’s conviction because the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to explore the allegation that a juror was racially biased. Yet no error was assigned to the court’s failure to hold such a hearing, nor does the Defendant argue this issue on appeal. It is not surprising that Jackson did not raise the issue on appeal, because when the State suggested such a hearing below, the defense attorney objected to a hearing.
In my opinion, the trial judge did fail to appreciate the degree of racial prejudice reflected in the remarks reported to have been made by juror X. Indeed, if such statements had been made by juror X during voir dire, I would be surprised if a challenge for cause were not sustained.6
The evidence of bias here was presented in support of a posttrial motion for new trial. The majority does not contend the evidence was irrefutable or so damning that it required a new trial per se regardless of whatever additional information might be developed at a hearing. Yet, inexplicably, the majority reverses Jackson’s conviction on the sole basis that the trial judge failed to override the defense’s objection to such a hearing.
Even on appeal, the Defendant does not request a remand for an evidentiary hearing. The majority blames the State for failing to suggest such a remand on appeal, but there is *546no reason why the State would make such a request. Nor does that foreclose the issue from our consideration. Appellant bases his appeal solely on an argument that his showing of bias necessitates, per se, a new trial. The majority does not accept that argument, yet grants the relief requested. If a remand is required, I see no reason why an evidentiary hearing could not now be ordered.
Reconsideration denied October 5, 1994.
Review denied at 126 Wn.2d 1003 (1995).

 Even at voir dire, however, the State would have had the right to inquire further of the juror to determine whether the showing of bias could be ameliorated such that a challenge for cause could be denied without committing reversible error.