Club factors in Washington

2020“If the answer to both is yes, the public trial right attaches and the Waller or Bone– - 26 - No. 79267-9-I/27 Club factors must be considered before the proceeding may be closed to the public.” Id. (citing Waller, 467 U.S. at 47 ; State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 724 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)).

2015No evidence suggests that the trial court considered the State v. Bone -Club factors before allowing the parties to exercise peremptory challenges. 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995).

2015State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29,35 , 288 P.3d 1126 (2012).

2014If a closure has occurred, "[ f]ailure to conduct the Bone -Club analysis is structural error warranting a new trial." Paumier, 176 Wn.2d at 35 . 2.

2015Wise, 176 Wn.2d at 13 - 14.

2014Wise, 176 Wn.2d at 15 . 2 44919 -6 -I1 The threshold determination when addressing an alleged violation of the public trial right is whether the proceeding at issue even implicates the right.

2020“If the answer to both is yes, the public trial right attaches and the Waller or Bone– - 26 - No. 79267-9-I/27 Club factors must be considered before the proceeding may be closed to the public.” Id. (citing Waller, 467 U.S. at 47 ; State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 724 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)).

2014Ed. 2d 31 ( 1984), and State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995)) ( emphasis added) footnote and citations omitted) ( quoting Press II, 478 U.S. at 7 -8).

2020“If the answer to both is yes, the public trial right attaches and the Waller or Bone– - 26 - No. 79267-9-I/27 Club factors must be considered before the proceeding may be closed to the public.” Id. (citing Waller, 467 U.S. at 47 ; State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 724 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)).

2014The first part of the test, the experience prong, asks " whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public." The logic prong asks " whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." If the answer to both is yes, the public trial right attaches and [ the trial court must consider]. the Waller or Bone - Club factors ... before the proceeding may be closed to the public. 7 State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 ( 1995). 11 No. 43108 -4 -II Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 ( discussing Walle

2020The court stated that it did not believe that Kitsap Rifle I anticipated reopening the record and that additional evidence was not necessary to determine the proper remedy. 1 This court disagreed with the trial court’s determination that the shooting range’s increased operating hours constituted an expansion of use. 184 Wn.

2017RCW 9.41.300(2)(a) provides that counties may enact ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms 4 Although we can affirm based on our holding in the previous section, we address this issue to complete our analysis of the Club’s claim. 12 No. 49130-3-II “where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized.” This exception authorizes local governments to regulate the discharge of firearms “in areas where people, domestic animals, or property would be endangered.” City of Seattle v. Ballsmider, 71 Wn.

2017App. 159, 163 , 856 P.2d 1113 (1993). a.

2015The court found no public trial right violation under such circumstances in State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d. 140, 156, 217 P. 3d 321 ( 2009).

2014In a Statement of Additional Grounds for Review SAG), Carson further asserts that ( 1) inconsistent testimony during the child hearsay hearing 1 State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572 , 683 P. 2d 173 ( 1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403 , 405 -06, 756 P. 2d 105 ( 1988). 2 State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995).

2014In a Statement of Additional Grounds for Review SAG), Carson further asserts that ( 1) inconsistent testimony during the child hearsay hearing 1 State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572 , 683 P. 2d 173 ( 1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403 , 405 -06, 756 P. 2d 105 ( 1988). 2 State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995).

2014In a Statement of Additional Grounds for Review SAG), Carson further asserts that ( 1) inconsistent testimony during the child hearsay hearing 1 State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572 , 683 P. 2d 173 ( 1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403 , 405 -06, 756 P. 2d 105 ( 1988). 2 State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995).

2014In a Statement of Additional Grounds for Review SAG), Carson further asserts that ( 1) inconsistent testimony during the child hearsay hearing 1 State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572 , 683 P. 2d 173 ( 1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403 , 405 -06, 756 P. 2d 105 ( 1988). 2 State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P. 2d 325 ( 1995).

2014Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 72 -73. 5 44919 -6 -II The issue of whether peremptory challenges made during a sidebar conference implicate the public trial right under the experience and logic test is controlled by our decision in State v. Dunn, 180 Wn.

2013Appellate counsel responded that if the Court denied review of D' Allesandro' s petition for review, he could file a personal restraint petition ( PRP), " arguing any 8 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L.

2013Appellate counsel responded that if the Court denied review of D' Allesandro' s petition for review, he could file a personal restraint petition ( PRP), " arguing any 8 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L.

2013S 13 Fulminante, 499 U. .at 310 (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U. .570, 577 78, 106 S. Ct. 3101 , 92 S S - L.Ed. 2d 460 (1986)citation omitted)). ( 14 Fulminante, 499 U. .at 309 10;Easterling, 157 Wn. d at 181.

2013As our Supreme Court recently explained: Structural error is a special category of constitutional error that "affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the L12] trial process itself. , Where there is structural error "` criminal trial cannot a reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.` Structural error, including deprivation of the public trial right, is not subject to harmlessness analysis.141 A defendant "should not be required to prove speci

2013As our Supreme Court recently explained: Structural error is a special category of constitutional error that "affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the L12] trial process itself. , Where there is structural error "` criminal trial cannot a reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.` Structural error, including deprivation of the public trial right, is not subject to harmlessness analysis.141 A defendant "should not be required to prove speci

2013Easterling, 157 Wn.2d at 174 , 176 n. 8, 181 ( citing Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 814 ; Brightman, 155 Wn.2d at 514 -15). 16 In our previous 2006 opinion in D' Allesandro' s direct appeal, we relied on both invited error and harmless error analyses, both of which the Supreme Court questioned in Easterling.

2013Easterling, 157 Wn.2d at 174 , 176 n. 8, 181 ( citing Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 814 ; Brightman, 155 Wn.2d at 514 -15). 16 In our previous 2006 opinion in D' Allesandro' s direct appeal, we relied on both invited error and harmless error analyses, both of which the Supreme Court questioned in Easterling.

2013Four months later, in June 2006, the Court issued State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 9 137 P. 3d 825 ( 2006), holding that the trial court had committed reversible error in closing the courtroom to Easterling and to the public during a pretrial hearing on his co- defendant' s motion to sever jury trials without first conducting a Bone -Club analysis.

2013Easterling, 157 Wn.2d at 171 - 72.

2013Four months later, in June 2006, the Court issued State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 9 137 P. 3d 825 ( 2006), holding that the trial court had committed reversible error in closing the courtroom to Easterling and to the public during a pretrial hearing on his co- defendant' s motion to sever jury trials without first conducting a Bone -Club analysis.

1982Peterick v. State, 22 Wn.