Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CHANCEY CORNELIUS BANKS, aka CHAUNCEY C. BANKS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 60153-9-I

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: December 20, 2010

Ellington, J. -- Chancey Banks challenges his conviction for robbery in the second degree, contending the court violated his right to public trial by conducting individual voir dire of one prospective juror in chambers. We agree, reverse, and remand for a new trial. BACKGROUND The State charged Banks with second degree robbery and second degree assault of Cynthia Crumb. Jury voir dire began in open court. In explaining the process, the judge informed the venire about the option to discuss sensitive matters privately: [I]f there's anything at all that you would feel more comfortable talking about outside the presence of the other prospective jurors, just say that. . . . [S]ay I'd really rather talk about that privately, and we can arrange that easily, and do it at a break or before we pick up again over the noon

No. 60153-9-I/2

hour. It's a very common thing for jurors to ask. So please don't be hesitant or be embarrassed to do that. We are not here to embarrass you. We don't want to ask a lot of private questions, but there are some things we need to get a little more information about.[1] The judge later reminded the prospective jurors they were "welcome to ask to talk about this privately."2 During the prosecutor's questioning, one panelist indicated she had been the victim of a violent crime in the mid-eighties. When the prosecutor asked whether that was "something you'd rather not-- ," the venire member nodded.3 The prosecutor said, "All right. We can follow up."4 At the conclusion of questioning in open court, the court, counsel, court reporter and Juror 3 went into chambers, where the court invited the prospective juror to talk about the incident.5 Juror 3 revealed that she had been attacked in her bed by an intruder with a knife or a screwdriver. The prospective juror stated the experience would have no bearing on her ability to be fair in the case. Neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel asked any questions or sought to excuse the prospective juror. The court told her to return to the jury box. The remainder of jury selection occurred in open court. Neither party challenged Juror 3, who apparently was seated.
1 2 3 4 5

Report of Proceedings (RP) (May 22, 2007) at 9

Download 60153-9-unp-doc.pdf

Washington Law