Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

State v. Irby, No. 82665-0. Terrance Irby was convicted of aggravated first degree murder and other crimes and sentenced to life in prison. One of his grounds of appeal challenged the use of email at the beginning of voir dire. Several jurors were disqualified after an email exchange, outside of Irby's presence, between defense counsel, prosecutors, and the judge. The Court of Appeals threw out Irby's conviction and held "that the trial court 'violated Irby's right to be present and contribute to jury selection.'"

The right to be present at one's own trial is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 22, of the Washington Constitution. The latter "provides an explicit guaranty of the right to be present:

"In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, or by counsel."

The Court sustains the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court's use of email to begin the voir dire process and strike several jurors outside of the presence of Irby violated his due process rights and that the error was not harmless. Justice Alexander wrote for a bare majority. Chief Justice Madsen wrote a dissent, joined by three other justices, arguing that the trial court has discretion to remove jurors and that Irby's presence at the discussion in question would not "substantially relate to his ability to defend himself." (briefs, argument)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The court hears four cases today. (Docket, briefs)

Morning session

In re PRP of Shawn Dominique Francis, No. 82619-6. Whether the defendant waived his double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions by pleading guilty to the crimes.

State v. Irby, No. 82665-0. Whether the trial court in a criminal prosecution violated the defendant’s constitutional right to be present when it dismissed some potential jurors outside the defendant’s presence after conferring with defense counsel and the State by email.

Afternoon session

In re W. Russell Van Camp, No. 200,799-6. Whether an attorney can avoid suspension while the bar association’s recommendation for disbarment is heard on appeal.

Guillen, City of Sunnyside v. Contreras, No. 82531-9. A man was killed in a drug deal and the police seized his car and money. The family of the man asked the judge to return the seized property, which the court did at one-quarter of its value. The question is whether the claimant in an action to recover property seized in a controlled substances investigation “substantially prevailed,” and thus was entitled to an award of attorney fees, even though she recovered in value less than one-quarter of the assets she sought.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link