State v. Bone-Club

Decision Date30 November 1995
Docket NumberNo. 62844-1,BONE-CLU,P,62844-1
Citation906 P.2d 325,128 Wn.2d 254
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Josephetitioner.

Rita J. Griffith, Attorney at Law, Andrew P. Zinner, Attorney at Law, Nielsen & Acosta, Eric Nielsen, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.

David S. McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor, Laura D. Hayes, Deputy, Bellingham, WA, for respondent State.


This case presents a matter of first impression regarding a trial court's responsibility to protect a defendant's right to a public trial under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution in the face of the State's motion for full closure of a criminal hearing. We hold a trial court must apply the closure test previously articulated by this court in Allied Daily Newspapers v. Eikenberry, 121 Wash.2d 205, 210, 848 P.2d 1258 (1993) and related cases. By failing to engage in this case-by-case weighing of the competing interests before ordering the temporary, full closure of a pretrial suppression hearing, the trial court here violated Defendant's public trial right. The case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

In 1991, Whatcom County charged Defendant Joseph Bone-Club with six violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (RCW 69.50) for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and delivery of cocaine. On January 9, 1992, the trial court held a pretrial suppression hearing to decide the admissibility of Defendant's statements to police. During those proceedings, the court ordered closure of the hearing solely on the basis of the following exchange with the State:

[THE STATE]: Before the testimony of the next witness the State would request that the courtroom be cleared.

THE COURT: All right. All those sitting in the back, would you please excuse yourselves at this time.

(The courtroom was cleared.) Report of Proceedings at 32 (Jan. 9, 1992). The court neither sought nor received an objection or assent from Defendant on the record. After the courtroom was cleared, Detective Frakes, an undercover police officer, testified he feared public testimony would compromise his undercover activities. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to Frakes, while granting a motion to suppress a statement to another police officer. Frakes later testified at trial in open court. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Boneclub, 76 Wash.App. 872, 888 P.2d 759 (1995).

Defendant claims the temporary, full closure of his pretrial suppression hearing during the testimony of the undercover police officer violated his right to a "speedy public trial" as guaranteed by article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution. As an initial matter, we acknowledge the public trial right extends to a pretrial suppression hearing. See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 47, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 2216, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984); Federated Publications, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wash.2d 51, 59-60, 615 P.2d 440 (1980). We also note Defendant's failure to object contemporaneously did not effect a waiver. State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142, 146-47, 217 P. 705 (1923).

Although the court has recognized in three cases the potential for a conflict between the State's request for a closed hearing and a defendant's public trial right, the facts of those cases have not necessitated the articulation of a section 22 standard. See State v. Collins, 50 Wash.2d 740, 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Gaines, 144 Wash. 446, 258 P. 508 (1927); Marsh, 126 Wash. at 142, 217 P. 705. In the earliest public trial right case, the Marsh court decided on statutory grounds an adult defendant's challenge to his closed juvenile court hearing, holding the Legislature granted juvenile courts jurisdiction to close hearings only for minor defendants, not adults. Marsh, 126 Wash. at 144, 217 P. 705. In Gaines, the court decided a trial court's stated intention to close a hearing did not threaten the defendant's public trial right where no closure actually ensued. Gaines, 144 Wash. at 462-63, 258 P. 508. Finally, where a trial court ordered the courtroom doors locked while allowing a reasonable number of spectators to remain, the Collins court held a partially closed hearing did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Collins, 50 Wash.2d at 747, 314 P.2d 660; accord, United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349, 1357 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied sub nom. Charley v. United States, 506 U.S. 958, 113 S.Ct. 419, 121 L.Ed.2d 342 (1992); Walker v. Dalsheim, 1988 WL 70599, at * 2 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (holding partial closure did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment public trial right).

In contrast to the lack of precedent addressing the section 22 right, this court has developed a strict, well-defined standard for closing a hearing in opposition to the public's right to open proceedings under article I, section 10 of the Washington Constitution. See Eikenberry, 121 Wash.2d at 210, 848 P.2d 1258; Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d 30, 36, 640 P.2d 716 (1982); Kurtz, 94 Wash.2d at 60, 615 P.2d 440. This series of section 10 cases, where media challenged closure of a hearing or court records, conceded the public's right to open proceedings is not absolute, but emphasized the high order of that constitutional protection mandated a trial court limit closure to rare circumstances. Eikenberry, 121 Wash.2d at 210, 848 P.2d 1258; Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d at 36, 640 P.2d 716; Kurtz, 94 Wash.2d at 60, 615 P.2d 440. To assure careful, case-by-case analysis of a closure motion, the trial court must perform a weighing test consisting of five criteria:

1. The proponent of closure or sealing must make some showing [of a compelling interest], and where that need is based on a right other than an accused's right to a fair trial, the proponent must show a "serious and imminent threat" to that right.

2. Anyone present when the closure motion is made must be given an opportunity to object to the closure.

3. The proposed method for curtailing open access must be the least restrictive means available for protecting the threatened interests.

4. The court must weigh the competing interests of the proponent of closure and the public.

5. The order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose.

Eikenberry, 121 Wash.2d at 210-11, 848 P.2d 1258; see also Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d at 36-39, 640 P.2d 716; Kurtz, 94 Wash.2d at 62-65, 615 P.2d 440.

The section 10 guaranty of public access to proceedings and the section 22 public trial right serve complementary and interdependent functions in assuring the fairness of our judicial system. In particular, the public trial right operates as an essential cog in the constitutional design of fair trial safeguards. We echo the sentiments of the United States Supreme Court:

"The requirement of a public trial is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions...."

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270 n. 25, 68 S.Ct. 499, 506 n. 25, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948) (quoting Thomas M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 647 (8th ed. 1927)). Although the public trial right may not be absolute, protection of this basic constitutional right clearly calls for a trial court to resist a closure motion except under the most unusual circumstances. We hold the five criteria a trial court must obey to protect the public's right of access before granting a motion to close are likewise mandated to protect a defendant's right to public trial.

Our decision to employ the same closure standard for both the section 10 and section 22 rights mirrors the United States Supreme Court's decision in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 47, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 2215-16, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). Faced with a defendant's challenge to a closure order under the Sixth Amendment public trial right, the Waller Court imported its standard from closure cases brought under the First Amendment's protection of public access to trials. Waller, 467 U.S. at 46-47, 104 S.Ct. at 2215-16.

"The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered."

Waller, 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. at 2215 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 824, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984)). Examining the full closure of a pretrial suppression hearing ordered to prevent disclosure of evidence derived from wiretaps, Waller held the trial court violated a defendant's public trial right by failing to find a sufficiently specific interest, consider alternatives, or narrowly tailor the closure order. Waller, 467 U.S. at 48-49, 104 S.Ct. at 2216-17. We find the Court's interpretation of the like constitutional public trial provisions persuasive. See City of Pasco v. Mace, 98 Wash.2d 87, 96, 653 P.2d 618 (1982).

We reject Defendant's contentions that the section 10 closure standard falls short of the Sixth Amendment on two of Waller's directions to the trial court: to consider alternatives to closure and to enter findings. See Waller, 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. at 2214-15. The Washington Constitution provides at minimum the same protection of a defendant's fair trial rights as the Sixth Amendment. Kurtz, 94 Wash.2d at 60, 615 P.2d 440. By explicitly ordering the trial court choose the least restrictive means, the section 10 test meets Waller's directive to consider alternatives. See Eikenberry, 121 Wash.2d at 210-11, 848 P.2d 1258. Likewise, this court has indicated a trial court's weighing of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
538 cases
  • State v. Rowland
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 2018
    ...that were not memorialized. See Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 513, 516 n.10. In addition, it is undisputed that the trial court did not engage in a Bone-Club analysis under the prong. See Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 520. Thus, whether Robinson's and Rowland's public trial right was violated hinges on the sec......
  • In re Reyes
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 24, 2015
    ...trial jurisprudence that the remedy for any public trial error “ ‘should be appropriate to the violation.’ ” State v. Bone–Club, 128 Wash.2d 254, 262, 906 P.2d 325 (1995) (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 50, 104 S.Ct. 2210 ). We recently explained that although we have said a public trial viola......
  • State v. Beskurt
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 31, 2013
    ...held that Taner Tarhan's right to a public trial had not been violated. However, the court held that the trial court's failure to conduct a Bone–Club1 analysis before sealing the questionnaires was inconsistent with the public's right of open access to court records and remanded the case fo......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 2014
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • In Washington State, Open Courts Jurisprudence Consists Mainly of Open Questions
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 88-2, December 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...P.3d 291, 295-96 (2005); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash. 2d 900, 903-04, 93 P.3d 861, 864 (2004); State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 258, 906 P.2d 325, 327 (1995); Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington v. Eikenberry, 121 Wash. 2d 205, 209-10, 848 P.2d 1258, 1260-61 (1993); Seattle Times Co. ......
  • An Open Courts Checklist: Clarifying Washington's Public Trial and Public Access Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 87-4, June 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...222, 227-29, 217 P.3d 310, 314-15 (2009). 10. See State v. Momah, 167 Wash. 2d 140, 156, 217 P.3d 321, 329 (2009). 11. 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 12. Brief for Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at app. A, State v. Paumier, 155 Wash. A......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Public Records Act Deskbook: Washington's Public Disclosure and Open Public Meetings Laws (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...160 Wn.2d 1006 (2007): 4.1(1), 4.1(1), 4.1(2), 22.2(1) State v. Bassett, 128 Wn.2d 612, 911 P.2d 385 (1996): 21.5 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995): Ch. 3, 21.2, 21.2, 21.3 State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 122 P.3d 150 (2005): Ch. 3 State v. Chen, 178 Wn.2d 350, 309 P......
  • §21.3 Access to Court Documents
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Public Records Act Deskbook: Washington's Public Disclosure and Open Public Meetings Laws (WSBA) Chapter 21 Access to Court Proceedings and Court Records
    • Invalid date
    ...on decisions to close court proceedings in Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982), and State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995). See §21.2 (Access to Washington Court Proceedings), above. The constitutional test set out in these cases also applies to m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT