State v. Andy
| Decision Date | 31 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 90567–3.,90567–3. |
| Citation | 340 P.3d 840,182 Wash.2d 294 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joey Anthony ANDY, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
David N. Gasch, Gasch Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Appellant.
Joey Anthony Andy (Appearing Pro Se), Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, Connell, WA, for Appellant.
James Patrick Hagarty, Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney's Off, Yakima, WA, for Respondent.
David Brian Trefry, Yakima County Prosecutors Office, Spokane, WA, for Respondent.
Jennifer Paige Joseph, King County Prosecutor's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 In Washington, criminal defendants have the right to a public trial. CONST. art. I, § 22. Courtrooms may be closed only in certain limited circumstances. Today, we evaluate whether a potential obstacle to public access constituted a courtroom closure. The potential obstacle in this case was a sign that listed the courthouse hours.
Defendant Joey Andy argues that because the sign listed a specific closing time and his criminal trial proceedings continued after the listed closing time, the sign constituted a courtroom closure. However, the evidence shows that at all times during Andy's trial proceedings, the door to the courthouse was unlocked and no member of the public was deterred from attending the proceedings by the sign. Therefore, we conclude that the sign did not constitute a courtroom closure and Andy's public trial right was not violated.
¶ 2 After a jury trial in Yakima County Superior Court, Andy was convicted of first degree burglary and second degree assault. He appealed, claiming that his public trial right was violated when proceedings on some days continued after 4:00 p.m. despite the new 4:00 p.m. closing time for the courthouse. Pursuant to RAP 9.11, Andy moved to remand the case to the superior court to take “additional evidence to determine whether the courthouse doors were locked at 4 p.m. on the dates of the trial ... and if so, whether that closure barred entry to the ongoing courtroom proceedings.” Mot. to Remand, No. 31018–3–III, at 1 (Wash.Ct.App. Mar. 5, 2013). The Court of Appeals commissioner granted the motion. As described below, the superior court entered findings of fact that the answer to both questions was no.
¶ 3 At the hearing, the superior court heard from six witnesses who primarily testified regarding general courthouse policies and procedures. Courthouse security personnel testified that the courthouse entrances and hours were restructured in October 2011 to address security and staffing issues. At that time, two entrances were closed and a permanent security station and metal detector were added to the remaining entrance. In addition, the board of county commissioners changed the courthouse hours to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for staffing reasons. The previous hours were 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.¶ 4 Lieutenant Brian Winter, the individual responsible for security at the Yakima County courthouse, testified that during June 2012, a paper sign was posted on the courthouse door listing the courthouse hours. He read the sign into the record as follows:
[T]he courthouse closes at 4:00 p.m. Office hours, auditor 9:00 to 3:30, HR, which was human resources, 9:00 to 4:00, district court clerks 8:00 to 4:00, superior court clerks 8:30 to 4:00. All others 8:00 to 4:00. The bottom line on the document says court closes at 5:00 p.m.
1 Verbatim Report of Proceedings, Reference Hearing (VRP–RH) at 152.1
¶ 5 Despite the new courthouse hours, the superior court judges insisted that the building needed to be open while court was in session. To accommodate the judges, courthouse security created a set of policies to ensure that the building doors remained open while court was in session.
¶ 6 First, if court continued past 4:00 p.m., a court clerk would call security to let them know that court was still in session. Second, at the end of each day, security would check every courtroom to make sure all trial proceedings had ended prior to locking the courthouse doors. If any courtroom was in session, the courthouse doors would remain open. Other mechanisms that courthouse security used to track whether court was in session were calling the court clerks to find out the estimated duration of ongoing proceedings and using security cameras to monitor whether a Department of Corrections transport vehicle was still on the premises.
¶ 7 If trial proceedings continued after 4:00 p.m., the doors remained open and anyone entering the building was greeted by a security guard. If people entering the building wanted to observe a trial proceeding, they were allowed in.
If they wanted to visit any other department, they were told it was closed. The officer testified that a person who wanted to attend court was not required to know the specifics of the court hearing; “[a]ll they'd have to do is indicate they're here for court and they're allowed into the building.” Id. at 124.
¶ 8 The trial court then heard testimony regarding the effect of the sign from an officer who worked the afternoon and evening shift at the security station near the courthouse's glass door entrance. The officer testified that he was able to see anyone coming up to the entrance and had never seen a person read the sign and walk away without trying the door. The officer testified that “[t]here have been numerous times that somebody has walked up to the door, read the sign and walked right in regardless of what it said.” Id. at 126. He said he could not “think of a single time” when he had seen a member of the public walk up, look at the sign, and not try to open the door, even if it was after 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. Id.¶ 9 In addition, witnesses from the courthouse security and administrative team testified that they had never received any complaints from the public about having difficulty attending court proceedings after 4:00 p.m.
¶ 10 Turning to Andy's trial specifically, the transcript shows that his trial ended between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on four dates. The transcript also shows that proceedings ended at 5:41 p.m. on one date (June 11, 2012). The time sheets for the on-duty security officer are consistent with those times. On the dates where proceedings ended between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., he worked until 5:00 p.m. He testified that per standard operating procedure, he kept the courthouse doors open until trial proceedings concluded on those days. On the date where proceedings ended at 5:41 p.m., his time sheet indicates that he worked overtime until 6:00 p.m. due to a trial in the courtroom of Judge Gibson (the trial judge in Andy's trial). His time sheet also indicates that he locked the courthouse doors and checked out of his station at 5:46 p.m., which is again consistent with Andy's proceedings ending at 5:41 p.m. The officer testified that he did not have a specific recollection of that particular day, but based on routine procedures, the doors would not have been locked on that day until after Andy's trial proceedings had ended at 5:41 p.m.
¶ 11 Based on the evidence, the trial court found that “the public entrance of the Yakima County Courthouse was open at all times when the Joey Andy trial was in session” and “[a]t no time was the public entrance of the Yakima County Courthouse closed while the Joey Andy trial was in session.” Clerk's Paper at 85. The trial court also found that “[n]o member of the public who desired to attend the Joey Andy trial was prevented from attending any session.” Id. at 86. With regard to the sign posting the courthouse hours, the court found:
No member of the public was deterred by the sign ... from entering the Yakima County Courthouse and attending any session of the Joey Andy trial. In the security officers' experience, members of the public always tried the door despite the sign before walking away from the public entrance. No member of the public was barred from entering the courthouse or attending any session of the Joey Andy trial by the sign.
Id. The court concluded that Andy's public trial right was not violated.
¶ 12 Andy appealed, claiming his public trial right was violated. He also filed a pro se statement of additional grounds for review, claiming prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, due process and confrontation clause violations, and abuse of authority by the trial court. The Court of Appeals certified the case to us, and the commissioner accepted certification.
¶ 13 A. Was Andy's right to a public trial violated?
¶ 14 B. Are Andy's additional grounds for review supported by evidence and legal authority?
¶ 15 Criminal defendants have the right to a public trial. CONST. art. I, § 22. Defendants can raise claims of public trial rights violations for the first time on appeal. State v. Wise, 176 Wash.2d 1, 9, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012). We review such claims de novo. State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167, 173–74, 137 P.3d 825 (2006). In general, findings of fact by the superior court are verities on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. See State v. Broadaway, 133 Wash.2d 118, 131, 942 P.2d 363 (1997).
¶ 16 We recently reiterated that the defendant has the burden of providing a record that shows that a courtroom closure occurred. See State v. Koss, 181 Wash.2d 493, 503, 334 P.3d 1042 (2014) ; State v. Slert, 181 Wash.2d 598, 608, 334 P.3d 1088 (2014) ; State v. Njonge, 181 Wash.2d 546, 556, 334 P.3d 1068 (2014), cert. denied, – –– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 880, 190 L.Ed.2d 711, 2014 WL 5502481 (2014).
¶ 17 In this case, the trial judge made findings of fact that the public was able to access the courtroom at all times during Andy's trial and that no member of the public was deterred by the sign posting the courthouse hours. These findings were supported by substantial evidence, since ...
To continue reading
Request your trial