# In re the Personal Restraint of Morris

> Washington Supreme Court · November 21, 2012 · 176 Wash. 2d 157

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4714800

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Patrick L. Morris
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 21, 2012
- **Citations:** 176 Wash. 2d 157; 288 P.3d 1140
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chambers
- **Judges:** Alexander, Chambers, Fairhurst, Johnson, Madsen, Owens, Stephens, Wiggins
- **Cited by:** 94 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4714800

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the petitioner cannot meet his burden to show that any evidentiary errors made by the trial court regarding the inadmissibility of certain subjects of proposed expert testimony resulted in complete miscarriage of justice
- observing that on direct review “failing to consider Bone-Club before privately questioning potential jurors violates a defendant’s right to a public trial and warrants a new trial”
- finding violation of the public trial right and granting relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
- recognizing the error is structural on direct appeal

## Opinion text

Chambers, J.
¶34 (concurring) — I agree with the lead opinion that this case is analytically indistinguishable from our decision in In re Personal Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004), and that Orange therefore controls the disposition of this case. I write separately to address several points.
¶35 This court’s jurisprudence regarding public trials under article I, sections 10 and 22 is still developing. As a threshold question in public trial rights cases, we should always decide first whether a closure of the courtroom has occurred. If there is no closure, then the analysis ends there.
¶36 We have just set forth a new test for determining whether an event constitutes a courtroom closure. In State v. Sublett, we adopted an “experience and logic” test from the United States Supreme Court. 176 Wn.2d 58, 72-73 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (plurality opinion) (quoting *174 Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S. Ct. 2735 , 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986)). Under that test, a closure is determined by examining (1) whether the place and process in question have historically been open to the public and (2) whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the process in question. Id. at 73 .
¶37 It will not always be necessary to use this new test. For example, it is “well settled that the right to a public trial.. . extends to jury selection.” State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 515 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005). The private questioning of individual jurors is plainly part of jury selection. Once this court has decided that a set of circumstances does or does not represent a closure, the issue is settled and it is no longer necessary to revisit the question with an experience and logic test or other analysis.
¶38 In this case, the question boils down to whether the defendant’s counsel on appellate review should have known to raise the public trial issue. As the lead opinion makes clear, Orange had been decided at the time Morris filed his appeal. Lead opinion at 167. Orange stated without qualification that a. Bone-Club 5 analysis applied to jury selection and that closure of jury selection without the required analysis was a presumptively prejudicial error on direct appeal. Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 807-08, 814 . Because Orange should have made clear to all that private questioning of jurors outside the courtroom was an issue worth raising on appeal, I concur in the lead opinion.
State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4714800. Public record. Not legal advice.