Court Opinion

ID: 9897923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:08.240237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:48.140023
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                          No. 82910-6-I

                    Respondent,               DIVISION ONE

                                              ORDER DENYING MOTION
            v.                                FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
                                              WITHDRAWING AND
CODY TERRELL WADE,                            SUBSTITUTING OPINION

                   Appellant.

          Appellant Cody Wade filed a motion for reconsideration of the opinion filed

   on August 2, 2023. The panel has determined that the motion for

   reconsideration should be denied but the opinion filed on August 2, 2023,

   withdrawn and a substitute opinion filed striking footnote 16.

          Now, therefore, it is hereby

          ORDERED that Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is denied and the

   opinion filed on August 2, 2023, shall be withdrawn and a substitute opinion

   striking footnote 16 shall be filed.

                                    FOR THE COURT:
       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                                        No. 82910-6-I
                       Respondent,
                                                        DIVISION ONE
                v.
                                                        PUBLISHED OPINION
 CODY TERRELL WADE,

                       Appellant.

       CHUNG, J. — After a trial that commenced in March 2021, Cody Wade was

convicted of first degree burglary, first degree robbery, and second degree

assault. The court imposed an exceptional downward sentence plus a mandatory

firearm enhancement for each crime. Wade argues the court violated his

constitutional right to confrontation by allowing two witnesses to testify remotely

using Zoom 1 videoconferencing. Wade also challenges the use of remote

videoconferencing technology for jury selection pursuant to court orders

authorizing its use to reduce risk of COVID-19 exposure. He claims this method

of jury selection violated his right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the

community because it excluded people based on their race and economic status,

as well as his right to a fair trial. He also argues that sentencing him to three

mandatory firearms enhancements based on a single firearm violates double

       1 Zoom is a cloud-based videoconferencing software platform.
jeopardy. Finding no error, we affirm.

                                             FACTS

        Kim Nguyen and her husband Le Tran arrived home from grocery

shopping just as their grandson Loc Tran, 2 who lived with them, also arrived

home from work. As Le and Loc carried the groceries into their house, two

people approached them and asked for directions and money. Le explained

which bus they should take but did not give them any money, and the two people

left.

        Loc carried a tank of water into the house and went to his bedroom, which

was off the kitchen, leaving the door to his bedroom slightly ajar. Loc heard his

grandmother, Nguyen, in the kitchen asking “who is there,” then he heard her

scream. Loc heard a sound “like glass was broken” and a gunshot, and through

the gap in the doorway from his bedroom, he saw one person run past his door.

A second person, whom Loc later tentatively identified as Wade, pointed a gun at

Loc. Wade did not say anything to Loc, and the other person pulled Wade away.

        Le, who was in the garden, heard his wife scream. He observed one

person leaving the house, and saw another person in the hallway. He found

Nguyen lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen and called 911. Nguyen’s purse

was taken, and she had been beaten over the head with a gun, pushed to the

ground, stomped on, and shot. She spent five days at Harborview Medical

Center but survived the attack.

        2 To avoid confusion, this opinion refers to Le and Loc Tran by their first names.

                                                 2
       The State initially charged Wade with burglary in the first degree, assault

in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, each while armed with a

firearm, and later amended the charges to include robbery in the first degree with

a firearm. Before Wade’s trial, the State moved to allow Nguyen and Le to testify

remotely using videoconferencing due to their vulnerability to COVID-19. Both

were 77 years old and unvaccinated against COVID-19. Then-current Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines stated that people over the

age of 65 were at “extreme risk” from COVID-19. Nguyen and Le were scheduled

to receive their first dose of vaccine in a few days. The State had initially moved

for a four-week continuance in order to allow the two to receive both their first

and second vaccinations and then testify in person. Wade, however, would not

agree to a continuance, as he had been in jail awaiting trial for approximately

three years at that point. Following a hearing on the State’s motion, the court

decided Nguyen and Le could testify remotely and issued a six-page written

order to that effect.

       Wade’s trial began in March 2021, when King County Superior Court had

just reopened for in-person criminal jury trials pursuant to its Emergency Order

# 27. 3 Wade objected to electronic or virtual jury selection on various grounds,

       3 Emergency Ord. # 27 re: Crim. Cases, No. 21-0-12050-3, Suspension of In-Person

Criminal Jury Trials Through February 12, 2021 (King County Super. Ct., Wash. Jan. 22, 2021),
https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts/superior-court/docs/COVID-19/FILED-Emergency-Order27-
KCSC-210120503.ashx?la=en [https://perma.cc/X2JE-4YGV]. “This [Washington Supreme Court]
Order and other applicable emergency orders may be deemed part of the record in affected
cases for purposes of appeal without the need to file the orders in each case.” Ord. re:
Modification of Jury Trial Proc., In re Statewide Response by Washington State Courts to the
COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, No. 25700-B-631, at 5 (Wash. June 18, 2020),

                                             3
including that remote voir dire violated his constitutional right to a jury drawn from

a fair cross section of the community. The trial court denied his motion.

         The jury returned a guilty verdict on four counts. 4 The court sentenced

Wade to an exceptional downward sentence of 41 months due to his youth and

immaturity but imposed an additional 156 months for three mandatory firearms

enhancements, each to be served consecutively. Wade filed this timely appeal. 5

                                         DISCUSSION

    I.      Remote Witness Testimony and the Confrontation Clause

         Wade argues the trial court erred by allowing Nguyen and Le to testify

remotely during COVID-19, thus violating his constitutional right to confrontation.

Specifically, he contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to excuse

face-to-face confrontation, the court erred by not holding a full evidentiary

hearing with testimony under oath on the State’s motion to allow remote

testimony, and the court erred by not reexamining its order before Nguyen and

Le testified remotely a month later. We disagree.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/Jury%20Resump
tion%20Order%20061820.pdf [https://perma.cc/S5YJ-BWPR].
          4 On the charge of assault of Nguyen, the jury convicted Wade of second degree, rather

than first degree, assault. This charge merged with the burglary and robbery counts; Nguyen was
the victim for all three counts.
          5 On the penultimate page of his brief, Wade alleges that because he refused to enter a

plea, “[t]he State punished [him] for exercising his right to a jury trial” by charging him “in a
manner that could have resulted in a sentence of 30 years.” He further alleges that this type of
charging results in “over-incarceration” and that “[RCW 9.94A].533(3) charges are the source of
significant racial disparity in Washington sentences.” Wade does not, however, further explain
this claim or support it with legal argument. Thus, regardless of the veracity of these statements,
“[t]his court will not consider claims insufficiently argued by the parties.” State v. Elliott, 114
Wn.2d 6, 15, 785 P.2d 440 (1990).

                                                4
        The federal constitution guarantees a person accused of a crime the right

“to be confronted with the witnesses against” them. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The

Washington Constitution similarly provides that an “accused shall have the

right . . . to meet the witnesses against him face to face.” W ASH. CONST. art. I,

§ 22. 6 The right is a procedural guaranty of “face-to-face” cross-examination. Coy

v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1019, 108 S. Ct. 2798, 101 L. Ed. 2d 857 (1988)

(confrontation right violated by a screen placed between testifying teenaged

sexual assault victims and the defendant).

        However, this right to face-to-face confrontation is only a “preference” that

“must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities

of the case.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 847-49, 110 S. Ct. 3157, 111 L.

Ed. 2d 666 (1990) (internal quotation mark omitted), quoted in State v. Milko, 21

Wn. App. 2d 279, 287-88, 505 P.3d 1251, review denied, 199 Wn.2d 1024, 512

P.3d 890 (2022). “[A] defendant’s right to confront accusatory witnesses may be

satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial only where denial of

such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and only

where the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.” Craig, 497 U.S. at

850. 7 The Craig two-pronged test of necessity and reliability applies to two-way

video testimony. Milko, 21 Wn. App. 2d at 289-90.

        6 Wade does not suggest the state constitution provides different or greater protection

than the federal confrontation clause and provides no briefing for such an analysis under State v.
Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986).
        7 We note that in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d

177 (2004), a case subsequent to Coy and Craig, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the inability
to cross-examine a witness violated the Sixth Amendment. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 (prohibiting

                                                5
        In general, we review de novo alleged violations of the confrontation

clause. Id. at 289. Necessity is a mixed question of law and fact. Id. We review

the trial court’s factual findings related to necessity for substantial evidence, and

we review de novo the trial court’s legal conclusion that video testimony was

necessary. Id. at 289-90. Violations of a defendant’s right to confrontation are

subject to harmless error analysis. Coy, 487 U.S. at 1021; State v. Sweidan, 13

Wn. App. 2d 53, 56, 461 P.3d 378 (2020).

        Wade does not dispute the court’s identification of the relevant public

policies: the court’s role in the community, the court’s interest in reducing case

backlog, the defendant’s desire to proceed to trial, and Nguyen and Le’s health

and safety. Instead, Wade challenges the court’s legal conclusion of necessity. 8

        Necessity is case specific, Craig, 497 U.S. at 855, and “means something

more than ‘convenient,’ although something less than ‘absolute physical

necessity.’ ” Sweidan, 13 Wn. App. 2d at 73. Here, substantial evidence supports

the case-specific facts found by the trial court, including the ages of Nguyen and

Le, their vaccination statuses, and the medical information provided by their

doctor’s note. Yet Wade argues that “[i]t is not enough that a witness . . . might

be exposed to the COVID-19 virus.”

tape-recorded statements offered as evidence under a hearsay analysis). The U.S. Supreme
Court has not addressed Coy or Craig since deciding Crawford. As we have previously stated,
“Crawford did not explicitly overrule Craig.” State v. D.K., 21 Wn. App. 2d 342, 348, 507 P.3d 859,
review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1003, 516 P.3d 376 (2022). Thus, as in D.K., here, “because Craig
refers to live, remote, video testimony, we apply the rule in Craig.” Id.
         8 Wade makes another argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that the court

should have “reexamined” its order because by the time Nguyen and Le actually testified the two
were likely fully vaccinated. We do not address matters raised for the first time in reply briefs.
RAP 10.3(c); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549
(1992).

                                                 6
       Division Two of this court specifically rejected that argument in Milko. In

Milko, the court affirmed the use of two-way video conferencing for two out-of-

state witnesses due to the risks posed by COVID-19, reasoning that the risk of

contracting COVID-19, as opposed to actually suffering from the virus, “was

sufficient to establish necessity.” 21 Wn. App. 2d at 294. We agree with this

reasoning. Like the witnesses in Milko, Nguyen and Le demonstrated a higher

risk of contracting COVID-19—here, due to their age.

       Wade also argues a court “cannot simply rely on a general, unsworn letter

from a doctor who provides no underlying information on his patients.” But the

doctor’s note here provides information about the specific risks to Nguyen and

Le. Other courts have relied on similar information about specific individuals’

risks to determine the necessity prong for remote testimony. See State v. D.K.,

21 Wn. App. 2d 342, 345, 507 P.3d 859, review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1003, 516

P.3d 376 (2022) (relying on doctor’s declarations that witnesses had medical

conditions that rendered them immunocompromised and they were not yet

eligible for the vaccine); Milko, 21 Wn. App. 2d at 284 (finding necessity based

on witnesses’ declarations and testimony about their medical conditions and risk

from exposure to COVID-19 unsupported by doctors’ notes). And sworn

testimony, while encouraged, is not required. See Sweidan, 13 Wn. App. 2d at 78

(noting that neither physician nor witness signed the letters in support of

witness’s remote testimony and stating, “[W]e encourage trial courts to require

affidavits or even testimony on the phone under oath” before ruling on necessity).

                                         7
        Thus, substantial evidence supports the court’s findings of case-specific

facts relating to the necessity of allowing Nguyen and Le to testify remotely

through Zoom. We determine the court did not err in concluding their remote

testimony was necessary to further undisputed, important public policies.

        As to reliability, the court found that remote testimony by Nguyen and Le

“will not reduce the reliability of their testimony” particularly because “jurors will

have an up-close view of the witness . . . much more clearly than if . . . socially

distanced several yards away.” “Under Craig, reliability requires that video

testimony of witnesses occur under oath, within view of the fact finders, and with

opportunity for cross-examination.” D.K., 21 Wn. App. 2d at 351 (citing Craig, 497

U.S. at 857). Here, the court did not err in concluding that the method of remote

testimony over Zoom was reliable because Nguyen and Le’s demeanor was on

view while they testified and were cross-examined under oath.

        Thus, Nguyen and Le’s remote testimony met the two prongs of the Craig

test: it was necessary to further the important public policy reasons of the health

and safety of witnesses and the court’s continued operations during COVID-19,

and the procedure assured the testimony was reliable. We conclude that allowing

Nguyen and Le to testify remotely did not violate Wade’s right to confrontation. 9

          9 Wade also challenges the trial court’s failure to enter written findings of fact regarding

its decision. However, the court’s written order details the facts on which it relied, even if it did not
use that label, so it is sufficient for our review. “The purpose of findings is to enable this court to
review the questions upon appeal, and when it clearly appears what questions were decided by
the trial court, and the manner in which they were decided, we think that the requirements have
been fully met.” Kinnear v. Graham, 133 Wash. 132, 133, 233 P. 304 (1925), cited in Lyall v.
DeYoung, 42 Wn. App. 252, 255–56, 711 P.2d 356 (1985) (examining an express warranty
despite the lack of written findings).

                                                   8
   II.      Remote Jury Selection over Video

         Wade next argues that, by permitting remote voir dire over Zoom during

the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court either abused its discretion or violated his

constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. We

disagree.

                A. Abuse of discretion

         It is well settled that voir dire, of necessity, is left to a trial court’s “ ‘sound

discretion.’ ” State v. Davis, 141 Wn.2d 798, 825, 10 P.3d 977 (2000) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594-95, 96 S.

Ct. 1017, 47 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1976)). “[A]bsent an abuse of discretion and a

showing that the rights of an accused have been substantially prejudiced, a trial

court’s ruling on the scope and content of voir dire will not be disturbed on

appeal.” Id. at 826. “Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court

will find error only when the trial court’s decision (1) adopts a view that no

reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on

facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3)

was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for

untenable reasons.’ ” State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607, 623, 290 P.3d 942

(2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d

647, 654, 71 P.3d 638 (2003)).

         The process for jury selection is set out in Criminal Rule (CrR) 6.4(b).

Additionally, King County Superior Court Local Criminal Rule (LCrR) 4.11

provides standards for, and a list of proceedings eligible for, video proceedings.

                                               9
Jury selection is not one of the enumerated proceedings. See LCrR 4.11(a).

Unenumerated proceedings “may be conducted by video conference only by

agreement of the parties.” LCrR 4.11(b).

       Wade claims the trial court violated LCrR 4.11(b) because the parties did

not agree to remote voir dire. The State argues the court properly exercised its

discretion by following a local emergency order authorized by our Supreme

Court. We agree with the State.

       When Wade’s trial began in March 2021, King County Superior Court had

just reopened for in-person criminal jury trials pursuant to its Emergency Order #

27. That order states, “In-person criminal jury trials, with remote voir dire, shall

resume on Tuesday, February 16, 2021.” The authority for Emergency Order #

27 derived from the Washington State Supreme Court’s “Fourth Revised and

Extended Order Regarding Court Operations,” issued in October 2020 (October

2020 Order), 10 which in turn relied on an earlier Supreme Court order regarding

the modification of jury trial proceedings, issued in June 2020 (June 2020

Order). 11

          10 Ord. re: Fourth Revised & Extended Ord. Regarding Ct. Operations, In re Statewide

Response by Washington State Courts to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, No. 25700-B-
646 (Wash. Oct. 13, 2020),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/Extended%20an
d%20Revised%20Supreme%20Court%20Order%20October%202020.pdf
[https://perma.cc/HN4J-9HFK].
          11 Ord. re: Modification of Jury Trial Proc., In re Statewide Response by Washington

State Courts to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, No. 25700-B-631 (Wash. June 18,
2020),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/Jury%20Resump
tion%20Order%20061820.pdf [https://perma.cc/S5YJ-BWPR]. The June 2020 Order was the
Washington Supreme Court’s first on the topic of the COVID-19 pandemic and remained its
touchstone for subsequent orders during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The Court’s

                                             10
        The June 2020 Order specifically states that, consistent with the

constitutional rights of the parties, “[t]he use of remote technology in jury

selection, including use of video for voir dire in criminal and civil trials, is

encouraged to reduce the risk of coronavirus exposure.” The June 2020 Order

also authorized video proceedings under CrR 3.4 and expanded that rule to

include jury selection. And the June 2020 Order also acknowledges, in its

preamble, that “presiding judges . . . need direction and authority to effectively

administer their courts in response to this state of emergency, including authority

to adopt, modify, and suspend court rules.”

        Wade objected to electronic or virtual jury selection. He argued that

remote voir dire violated his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross

section of the community because the technical equipment required would be

“yet another factor systemically excluding those already underrepresented in the

process,” including “low-income people and people of color.” The trial court

denied Wade’s motion, stating, “[T]he Court will follow the policy that’s been set

by the Court leadership and conduct voir dire by Zoom.” The court also said that

video voir dire was “a controversy that is being dealt with at a level above my

level.” In a written order ruling on the parties’ motions in limine, regarding remote

voir dire, the trial court quoted Emergency Order # 27 and adopted and

subsequent COVID-19 orders kept in place many of its provisions, including the use of video for
voir dire. See, e.g., Ord. re: Ct. Operations After October 31, 2022, In re Statewide Response by
Washington State Courts to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, No. 25700-B-697, at 5
(Wash. Oct. 27, 2022),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/Order%2025700
A697.pdf [https://perma.cc/HXR3-V2WG].

                                               11
incorporated a discussion of issues relating to remote jury selection from a

written order in an unrelated King County Superior Court case, State v. Wilson,

No. 18-1-04727-3-SEA (July 8, 2020) (Wilson order). 12

        The trial court properly relied on the Supreme Court’s October 2020 and

June 2020 Orders and King County Superior Court Emergency Order # 27 when

it decided to allow Wade’s jury to be selected over Zoom. It did not violate LCrR

4.11(b) because the Supreme Court’s June 2020 Order recognized that courts

would need to adopt, modify, or suspend rules such as LCrR 4.11(b) during

COVID-19, and because “local rules may not be applied in a manner inconsistent

with the civil rules” promulgated by the Supreme Court. Jones v. City of Seattle,

179 Wn.2d 322, 344, 314 P.3d 380 (2013).

        Alternatively, Wade claims the trial court abused its discretion because it

“made no independent decision” and “defer[red] to an order” from an unrelated

case, Wilson, that did not discuss LCrR4.11(b). However, King County Superior

Court designated Wilson to be the first case in that court to proceed to trial when

jury trials restarted. The Wilson order cites the Supreme Court’s June 2020

Order, which encouraged courts to use video for voir dire in criminal and civil jury

trials. Further, the Wilson order acknowledges that “no part of a jury trial is more

susceptible to the spread of a virus than jury selection” because 40-70

prospective jurors are “shoehorned” into the courtroom shoulder-to-shoulder,

sharing a microphone that is “normally put right up against the speaker’s mouth.”

        12 The State moved to supplement the record with the order in Wilson. A commissioner of

this court allowed the State to supplement the record with the Wilson order subject to Wade’s
arguments to the contrary in briefing. The Wilson order is included in the appellate record.

                                               12
Then, the Wilson order presents the court’s 33-point plan for conducting voir dire

over Zoom.

       Particularly relevant here, the Wilson order provides that Zoom’s technical

requirements are not imposed until after all of the following occur: prospective

jurors are selected, those jurors are sent a questionnaire, those jurors answer the

questionnaire, and hardships are considered and granted. If, at that point in the

voir dire process, prospective jurors “express an inability or unwillingness to

cooperate via Zoom,” then those prospective jurors “will be summoned to the

courthouse . . . for in-person voir dire.” The Wilson order includes 18 pages of

analysis regarding foreseeable legal issues: procedural due process,

confrontation, a defendant’s right to be present, substantive due process or the

right to a jury trial, open court, the “Inequities in Zoom Technology,” and other

practical concerns. The court notes that “[t]he use of Zoom technology has

already increased juror response rather than dampening it. No credible evidence

exists that its use has increased disproportionality in this jury.”

       The Wilson order provides uniquely relevant reasoning by a judge in the

same court facing the same national and state-declared state of emergency due

to COVID-19. The trial court’s reference to the Wilson order in this case is not a

failure to exercise discretion or unlawful deference but, rather, a decision to

adopt procedures pursuant to a clearly articulated written analysis of the facts

and legal and practical issues related to voir dire common to all proceedings in

the same court during COVID-19. Thus, the court here did not unreasonably

defer to the Wilson order.

                                          13
        Finally, Wade argues that “the legislature has preempted the field of jury

selection,” so King County Superior Court’s technical requirements for

prospective remote jurors 13 violate state law regarding juries, chapter 2.36 RCW.

But the concept of preemption is inapposite here, as Wade alleges a conflict

between the authority of the legislature and that of the judicial branch, not a

conflict between legislative entities. 14 Further, our Supreme Court has the

inherent authority to administer justice and to ensure the safety of court

personnel, litigants, and the public. State v. Wadsworth, 139 Wn.2d 724, 741,

991 P.2d 80 (2000); State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34, 111, 309 P.3d 326 (2013)

(González, J., concurring) (this court has plenary authority over trial procedures),

abrogated on other grounds by City of Seattle v. Erickson, 188 Wn.2d 721, 398

P.3d 1124 (2017). While the legislature established the qualifications for jurors,

see RCW 2.36.070, chapter 2.36 RCW otherwise assigns to courts the authority

to determine procedures for jury selection. 15

        13 Wade describes the technical requirements to include that prospective jurors must

have reliable access to high speed or broadband internet, a personal e-mail address, a device
with a video camera, the ability to hear and be heard, and a quiet location without distraction.
However, while Wade cites to the King County juror information page and to the report of
proceedings for this information, the record on appeal does not include a copy of the documents
used with Wade’s juror panels.
         14 Wade points to Bass v. City of Edmonds, 199 Wn.2d 403, 508 P.3d 172 (2022), for

support, arguing that it stands for the proposition that a state statute preempts a local rule if the
statute occupies the field or if the statute and the local rule irreconcilably conflict. Bass does not
support Wade’s “preemption” argument in this case, as it involved a city firearms storage
ordinance that was expressly preempted by state statute. Id. at 415.
         15 For example, the section of the statute entitled “Jury source list—Master jury list—

Creation” states:
         Unless otherwise specified by rule of the supreme court, the jury source list and
         master jury list for each county shall be created as provided by this section.
                  (1) The superior court of each county . . . shall annually notify the
         consolidated technology services agency . . . to use either a jury source list that

                                                  14
        The trial court relied on Emergency Order # 27, and it adopted a written

discussion of relevant legal issues shared in common with another case. King

County’s Emergency Order # 27 was authorized by the Supreme Court’s

modified jury trial order. Chapter 2.36 RCW delegates to the court decisions

about jury selection and does not preempt Emergency Order # 27. Therefore, the

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Wade’s motion in limine,

incorporated the Wilson order, and allowed voir dire over Zoom.

                 B. The right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the
                    community

        Wade also argues that by permitting voir dire on Zoom over his objection,

the trial court violated his constitutional right to a jury representing a fair cross

section of the community. We conclude that Wade has not established a prima

facie case of a violation of his right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the

community.

        Our federal and state constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right

to a jury trial. U.S. CONST. amends. VI, XIV; WASH. CONST. art. I, § 22 (“by an

impartial jury of the county in which the offense is charged”). This right includes

an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. Taylor v.

Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 527, 530, 95 S. Ct. 692, 42 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1975); see

          is merged by the county or a jury source list that is merged by the consolidated
          technology services agency. . . .
RCW 2.36.054 (emphasis added). The next section provides, “The superior court at least
annually shall cause a jury source list to be compiled from a list of all registered voters and a list
of licensed drivers and identicard holders residing in the county.” RCW 2.36.055 (emphasis
added). And RCW 2.36.065 further assigns responsibility regarding jury selection, stating, “It shall
be the duty of the judges of the superior court to ensure continued random selection of the master
jury list and jury panels.” (Emphasis added.)

                                                 15
also In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177 Wn.2d 1, 19, 296 P.3d 872 (2013) (the

exclusion of distinctive groups prevents “ ‘the commonsense judgment of the

community’ ” from operating “ ‘as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken

prosecutor’ ” and the “ ‘perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge’ ”

(quoting Taylor, 419 U.S. at 530)). The venire, the pool, jury wheel, or panel from

which a jury is drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the

community. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 363-64, 99 S. Ct. 664, 58 L. Ed. 2d

579 (1979) (quoting Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538).

       A challenger has the burden to establish a prima facie violation of the right

to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. Yates, 177 Wn.2d at

19. A prima facie violation requires three elements:

       “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in
       the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires
       from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation
       to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this
       underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in
       the jury-selection process.”

Id. (quoting Duren, 439 U.S. at 364). If a violation is established, it is the State’s

burden to show a significant state interest, not merely rational grounds,

manifestly and primarily advanced by the criteria resulting in the disproportionate

exclusion of a distinctive group. Duren, 439 U.S. at 368, cited in Yates, 177

Wn.2d at 19. We review a trial court’s rulings on challenges to the venire process

for abuse of discretion. State v. Clark, 167 Wn. App. 667, 674, 274 P.3d 1058

(2012) (citing State v. Tingdale, 117 Wn.2d 595, 600, 817 P.2d 850 (1991)).

                                          16
        Wade argues that King County’s juror selection system disproportionately

excludes African-Americans and people with lower incomes. In support, he points

to King County’s online “Remote Participation – Video Voir Dire” page, which he

states informs potential jurors they will need (1) reliable access to high speed or

broadband Internet, (2) a personal e-mail address, (3) a device with a video

camera, (4) the ability to hear and be heard, and (5) a quiet location without

distraction. In addition, he quotes an open letter from the president of the Seattle

King County NAACP expressing concern that remote voir dire is “a perfect

example of the systemic racism in the criminal justice system.” The State notes

that both the postcard King County sends to potential jurors and its online pages

for jurors provide a telephone number for potential jurors to call. Those pages

also inform potential jurors they may appear in-person in small groups if remote

voir dire is not possible. The record shows that potential jurors were sent

questionnaires to which they replied, and then the court considered hardship

dismissals. 16 Wade asked for the questionnaire to include a reminder to potential

jurors not to search for the names of the parties, which the court granted. The

record contains a transcript of the remote voir dire of three panels of jurors.

        Here, Wade can establish that both African-Americans and people of low

economic status comprise distinct groups for the purpose of this analysis. Yates,

        16 While the parties’ briefing discusses King County Superior Court’s “Remote

Participation – Video Voir Dire” online pages and provides a website link, the appellate record
does not contain the information from the website from the relevant time, nor the other referenced
documents. Neither party requested that this court take judicial notice of this information. “The
party presenting an issue for review has the burden of providing an adequate record to establish
such error.” Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d at 619 (citing RAP 9.2(b)).

                                               17
177 Wn.2d at 19; RCW 2.36.080(3) (“A citizen shall not be excluded from jury

service in this state on account of . . . economic status.”). However, Wade fails to

show that representation of these groups in the venires from which juries are

selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in

the community. He presents no evidence establishing the proportion of African-

Americans or the prevalence of low economic status either in King County or

Wade’s venire. He cannot show the absolute or comparative disparities required

to analyze whether distinct community groups are fairly and reasonably

proportionally represented within the venire. See Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S.

314, 323, 130 S. Ct. 1382, 176 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2010) (explaining the calculation of

absolute and comparative disparities). Thus, Wade cannot satisfy the second

element of his prima facie case, so his fair-cross-section-violation claim cannot

proceed. See Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 (explaining the prima facie case for a fair-

cross-section violation requires showing all three elements).

       Nor can Wade establish the third element of his prima facie case. His

concern is that remote voir dire systematically excludes people of color or of low

income from serving as potential jurors, not from the venire from which potential

jurors will be selected. But the record shows that potential jurors had already

been selected from the jury pool, been summonsed by postcard, been

questioned, and had hardship dismissals granted before the technical

requirements of remote voir dire were introduced. The point in the process at

which remote voir dire’s technical requirements are introduced matters because

the point of analysis for systemic exclusion is the venire. Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538

                                        18
(“Defendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition; but the jury

wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not

systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be

reasonably representative thereof.” (Citations omitted)); State v. Salinas, 87

Wn.2d 112, 115, 549 P.2d 712 (1976) (“The point at which to consider the

constitutionality of the selection process has usually been at the selection of a

master list from which the panel for each jury term is selected.”). Therefore, the

trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Wade’s challenge to remote

voir dire over Zoom. 17

    III.      Double Jeopardy

           Wade also claims that imposing three firearms enhancements when he

possessed only a single gun during a continuous criminal episode violated

double jeopardy. Wade’s primary argument is that each firearms enhancement

pursuant to RCW 9.94A.533(3) is a separate punishment for the same underlying

offense and, thus, violates double jeopardy. We disagree.

           Our federal and state constitutions’ “protection from double jeopardy

protects against multiple convictions for the same offense and multiple

           17 For the first time on appeal, Wade argued he was prejudiced because his counsel

could not accurately assess the nonverbal behaviors of prospective jurors over Zoom. Below,
Wade moved to require witnesses, not jurors, to testify without wearing face masks. The court
granted Wade’s motion in part and required witnesses to wear plastic face shields, not cloth or
paper masks, while testifying. Cf. State v. Bell, No. 83387-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. May 22, 2023),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/833871%20orderandopinion.pdf (holding trial court did
not abuse its discretion when, during a pandemic, it required jurors to wear face masks during
jury selection but not clear face shields as requested by the defendant). Wade’s motion in limine
and argument objecting to remote voir dire discussed a fair-cross-section violation, not nonverbal
behavior. We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a).

                                                 19
punishments for the same offense.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 817, 453

P.3d 696 (2019) (citing Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 688, 100 S. Ct.

1432, 63 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1980)). 18 However, the double jeopardy clause “ ‘does

not prohibit the imposition of separate punishments for different offenses.’ ” Id.

(quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848, 809 P.2d 190 (1991)). Thus, “the

first step in determining whether a defendant has suffered multiple punishments

for the same offense is to determine what punishments the legislature has

authorized.” Id. at 815. If the legislature clearly intended to impose multiple

punishments for the same conduct, “ ‘this is the end of the inquiry and no double

jeopardy violation exists.’ ” Id. at 816 (quoting State v. Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72, 77,

226 P.3d 773 (2010)). Double jeopardy is a question of law reviewed de novo. Id.

at 815.

        Wade argues that statutory aggravators such as firearms enhancements

are elements of the crime for double jeopardy purposes and, thus, the court

could not impose multiple punishments for the same conduct, based on Alleyne

v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 103, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013),

and State v. Allen, 192 Wn.2d 526, 537, 431 P.3d 117 (2018). In Alleyne, the

U.S. Supreme Court held that, other than a prior conviction, a fact that as a

matter of law increases the penalty for a crime is an element of that crime and

must be found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. Allen, 192 Wn.2d at 537

(citing Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 103). Subsequently, in Allen, the Washington

       18 Our state and federal constitutions “are identical” with regard to double jeopardy. State

v. Schoel, 54 Wn.2d 388, 391, 341 P.2d 481 (1959).

                                                20
Supreme Court applied Alleyne and concluded that statutory aggravators were

an element of aggravated first degree murder for double jeopardy purposes. Id.

at 544. Wade contends that firearms enhancements in a multiple punishments

case “are no different from” aggravating factors in a multiple prosecutions case

such as Allen. 19

        However, the Washington Supreme Court has subsequently explained

that its “double jeopardy analysis in Allen does not apply to cases involving

multiple punishments.” Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 818. The Arndt court distinguished

the issue of multiple prosecutions, which looks to whether the same facts must

be found by a jury under the Sixth Amendment, from the issue of multiple

punishments under the Fifth Amendment, where the question is one of legislative

intent. Id. at 815-17.

        The court in Arndt relied on Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72, a multiple punishments

case involving firearms enhancements. In Kelley, the defendant committed

murder and assault with a deadly weapon while armed with both a .45 caliber

handgun and a 9-millimeter handgun and was sentenced to four firearms

enhancements. Id. at 75. The Kelley court held the firearms enhancements did

not violate double jeopardy, even though possession of a handgun was an

element of one of his underlying convictions for assault with a deadly weapon. Id.

at 84. In Arndt, the court ruled that “Kelley continues to apply and affirms the

        19 Allen involved multiple prosecutions: the State refiled charges of aggravated murder

against Allen, who was alleged to be an accomplice in the shooting deaths of four police officers,
after a jury acquitted him of the aggravating factors and his murder convictions were vacated on
other grounds. Allen, 192 Wn.2d at 528-29.

                                                21
principle that ‘cumulative punishments may be imposed for the same act or

conduct in the same proceeding if that is what the legislature intended.’ ” Arndt,

194 Wn.2d at 818 (quoting Kelley, 168 Wn.2d at 83).

        Regarding legislative intent as to firearm enhancements, we have

interpreted RCW 9.94A.533(3) to “ ‘clearly dictate[] . . . enhancements are

mandatory and must be served.’ ” State v. Wright, 19 Wn. App. 2d 37, 47-50, 493

P.3d 1220 (2021) (quoting State v. Brown, 139 Wn.2d 20, 28, 983 P.2d 608

(1999), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188

Wn.2d 1, 21, 391 P.3d 409 (2017)), review denied, 199 Wn.2d 1001, 506 P.3d

1230 (2022). 20 Because RCW 9.94A.533(3) clearly expresses the legislature’s

intent for multiple punishments from the same conduct, “ ‘this is the end of the

inquiry and no double jeopardy violation exists.’ ” Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 816

(quoting Kelley, 168 Wn.2d at 77). The firearms enhancement statute is not a

separate crime from the crime of conviction, and the legislature intended

enhancements to be multiple punishments.

        Finally, Wade argues the State is limited to a single enhancement for

double jeopardy purposes because State v. DeSantiago, 149 Wn.2d 402, 68

P.3d 1065 (2003), holds the “unit of prosecution” for firearms enhancements is

the number of firearms a defendant used or possessed. But the question in

        20 Wade argues that the statute is ambiguous because “no case has ever determined

how many .533(3) charges can be added to multiple eligible offenses arising from one continuous
episode when the defendant possesses only one gun.” To the contrary, cases both before and
after Allen have held that RCW 9.94A.533(3) is unambiguous. E.g., State v. Mandanas, 168
Wn.2d 84, 90, 228 P.3d 13 (2010); Wright, 19 Wn. App. 2d at 47 (it is now “settled law” that the
statute’s enhancements are mandatory and must be served).

                                              22
DeSantiago was whether the statute allowed more than one enhancement per

conviction, and Wade asks a different question: whether three underlying

convictions may each be enhanced a single time based on a single firearm.

DeSantiago held that the “essential question” was not the unit of prosecution, but

whether the legislature intended separate punishments. Id. at 420. In that case,

the trial court imposed two enhancements, one for a handgun and another for a

knife, based on one conviction for kidnapping. Id. at 410 (construing prior version

of firearms enhancement statute). On appeal, DeSantiago argued that one

underlying offense could not be enhanced twice. Id. The Supreme Court

concluded the two enhancements did not violate double jeopardy because the

statute’s plain language required sentencing courts to impose an enhancement

for each firearm or other deadly weapon. Id. at 421. DeSantiago does not support

Wade’s argument.

      As discussed above, the firearms sentence enhancement statute, RCW

9.94A.533(3), is unambiguous and clearly expresses a legislative intent for

multiple punishments. Wade was convicted of three separate crimes—burglary,

robbery, and assault—and a separate firearm enhancement was imposed for

each. Because these three firearms enhancements are multiple punishments for

the three underlying convictions, they do not violate double jeopardy.

                                        23
   Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

               24