State v. Matamua

• Docket Number: 56832-2-II
• Decision Date: 28 November 2023
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. SAMUEL MATAMUA, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
SAMUEL MATAMUA, Appellant.

No. 56832-2-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

November 28, 2023

CRUSER, A.C.J.

Samuel Matamua was charged with first degree robbery following an attack at a park in Olympia, Washington. During jury selection, the court denied Matamua's attempted peremptory challenge following a GR 37 analysis. The juror was seated, and Matamua was convicted of first degree robbery. His judgment and sentence includes legal financial obligations (LFOs) in the form of the $500 crime victim penalty assessment (VPA), restitution in the amount of $158.50, and community custody supervision fees.

Matamua appeals, arguing that the trial court's GR 37 procedure injected racial bias into the proceedings and that the trial court erroneously concluded that an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge. In addition, Matamua argues that the VPA and restitution violate the excessive fines clause and that the trial court committed a scrivener's error when it imposed the community supervision fees. The State concedes that the community custody supervision fees were imposed against Matamua in error.

2

We hold that the trial court erred in denying Matamua's peremptory challenge against juror 15, but that the error was harmless under the nonconstitutional harmless error standard. Accordingly, we affirm Matamua's conviction for first degree robbery. In addition, we remand for the trial court to consider whether the VPA should be stricken from Matamua's judgment and sentence based on recent statutory amendments. The restitution, however, does not violate the excessive fines clause. Based on the State's concession, we remand for the trial court to strike the community supervision fees from Matamua's judgment and sentence.

FACTS

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2021, Richard Johnson was at Heritage Park in Olympia. Johnson was doing a dance workout while dressed in a rainbow costume with custom fangs. They also wore a shoulder purse that held their driver's license, "a few dollars," and a CD player that was connected to headphones that they were wearing. 3 Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) at 294.

While Johnson was doing their dance workout, someone approached them, hit them on the side of the face with a rolled-up mat, and punched them. The attacker then tore Johnson's purse off of their neck and left. Another person at the park stopped to assist Johnson, and the two approached the attacker, who dropped the purse. Johnson's fangs, purse, and headphones were damaged as a result of the attack.

Johnson described their attacker as a "tall, [B]lack, bare-chested man carrying a rolled-up mat," and could not remember anything else about what the attacker looked like. Id. at 296. Two witnesses drove by as Johnson was attacked and called 911 to report the incident. One of these witnesses described the attacker as wearing shorts, no shirt, with "shaggy and brown hair," and the

3

other believed the attacker was Black and wearing tan shorts with no shirt. Id. at 273. Neither felt comfortable making an identification of the attacker.

Sergeant Matthew Renschler from the Olympia Police Department arrived on the scene within minutes. Dispatch described the attacker as a "shirtless [B]lack male." Id. at 441. When Sergeant Renschler arrived at the park, he initially spoke with Johnson but could see a "shirtless dark-skinned male wearing shorts" approximately one block away. Id. at 442. He did not see any other people leaving the scene that matched the description. Sergeant Renschler knew that other responding officers were close by, so he stayed with Johnson and advised the other officers that he saw a person matching the description and gave them the location. This description included that the suspect had two braids in his hair and was carrying a mat.

When the other officers arrived, they saw Matamua, who was shirtless and wearing tan shorts, was carrying a rolled-up mat, and had darker skin and braids in his hair. Matamua caught the officers' attention because this matched the description from dispatch and Sergeant Renschler. The officers did not notice others in the area matching the description. Matamua was arrested and charged with first degree robbery. When Matamua was in a patrol car with Washington State Trooper Joseph McClain, Matamua spontaneously stated, "I'm sorry." Id. at 414.

II. JURY SELECTION

At the outset of jury selection, the trial court explained to counsel,

I do want counsel to just be taking notes throughout voir dire starting from the time that the jury panel arrives in the courtroom and continuing throughout voir dire regarding jurors to which General Rule 37 might apply. I will ask counsel that question as we proceed with voir dire to ensure that the court follows GR 37 and makes sure that we're taking adequate notes regarding those jurors. I know that this is an uncomfortable process. It is uncomfortable for the court as well, but I do want to make sure that we follow that rule, and if counsel throughout voir dire believes that it may need to exercise a peremptory as to a juror to which GR 37 applies, of

4

course the court will look very carefully at the language of GR 37 with regard to that request. So [I] just want the parties to be aware to take good notes. All of our discussions regarding GR 37 may likely be without the jurors in the courtroom so that's why I say good notes are required.

2 VRP at 89-90 (italics omitted). During a break in voir dire, the court asked what the parties' "understanding is at this time of the jurors in our pool to which GR 37 applies." Id. at 201. The State expressed discomfort with the process and explained that "the point of GR 37 is to identify what the parties' implicit bias might be so I believe it truly is my perception that's at play, not whether or not - the reality of whether these folks fall within potentially GR 37." Id. at 202.

Based upon "learned stereotypes of people, skin color[,] and/or name," the State identified four jurors: jurors 12, 15, 24, and 33. Id. Defense counsel agreed with the State's list, and the court stated that GR 37 applied to those four jurors. The trial court then explained that it intended to ask the parties at the close of voir dire whether they intended to use a peremptory challenge on one of the four jurors to which GR 37 would apply, in which case the court would conduct a GR 37 analysis outside the presence of the panel. Neither party asked any questions or raised any objections regarding this process.

During voir dire, the State posed a hypothetical involving the weather. In the hypothetical, the jurors had heard that the forecast called for a rainstorm, had been in the courtroom with the windows closed, and watched someone come into the courtroom with a dripping wet umbrella and raincoat. Based on these facts, the State asked the jurors whether they would be convinced beyond

5

a reasonable doubt that it was raining outside. Juror 15 responded, "based on his actions I would have to assume that it was raining." Id. at 172.^[1]

After the above-mentioned break in voir dire, defense counsel's first question was to juror 15. Counsel explained that in the weather hypothetical, the evidence was the juror's own observations, and then asked juror 15 what he expected to see in terms of the evidence in this case. Juror 15 responded, "presentation of the evidence against [Matamua], the defense's case on putting doubt possibly in the jury's decision based on, you know, questioning of the - of the witnesses." Id. at 206. Defense counsel explained that he was concerned about people's expectations for trial based on what they see on television shows or the news, and said to juror 15, "You had mentioned a defense case. Do you think there has to be a defense case?" Id. at 206-07. The following exchange occurred:

JUROR 15: I believe so. There has to be a defense because there's - the prosecution is going to bring up the case against him of what supposedly he did.

MR. SMITH: Do I have to call witnesses?

JUROR 15: My assumption would be yes.

MR. SMITH: What if you were instructed the answer is no, that I don't have to do anything?

JUROR 15: I believe that would be your - that would be part of your strategy.

6

MR. SMITH: Okay. But what I'm asking is if you're instructed that I don't have to do anything, that it is the [S]tate's burden entirely to prove this case and I don't have to call anyone or do anything, is that going to affect your expectations about what you think should be happening?

JUROR 15: Possibly.

MR. SMITH: Talk to me about that.

JUROR 15: It depends on how you go about presenting your - your piece, your - what you're trying to instill doubt on the jury.

MR. SMITH: Does Mr. Matamua have to testify?

JUROR 15: That's strictly up to you as a defense.

MR. SMITH: But if he doesn't, is that going to affect how you think the case should go?

JUROR 15: No.

Id. at 207.

Defense counsel then asked juror 9 what they thought the case should look like, and juror 9 responded, "the evidence by both attorneys along with statements from witnesses presented by each side." Id. at 208. Defense counsel stated that juror 9 was "raising some of the things I talked about with juror 15," and asked whether the defense needed to have a case. Id. Juror 9 responded no. Defense counsel also asked whether juror 9 understood that the State has the burden to prove the case, and juror 9 responded yes.^[2] Counsel then asked juror 12 whether they also understood that the State needed to prove the case, to which juror 12 responded yes, and counsel asked juror 7 whether they would hold it against Matamua if the trial did not play out the way that they may

7

have seen on television. Juror 7 responded no...