State of Washington v. Miguel Angel Quintanilla

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MIGUEL ANGEL QUINTANILLA,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39840-4-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
COONEY , J. — Miguel Quintanilla appeals his convictions for assault in the second
degree, felony harassment, and assault in the fourth degree, arguing: (1) an in-chambers
meeting during voir dire, following which two jurors were dismissed without
explanation, violated his right to a public trial; (2) the difference between the alleged date
of the offenses contained in his information and the jury instructions allowed the jury to
convict him of crimes for which he was not charged; (3) the prosecutor committed
prejudicial misconduct; (4) his protection against double jeopardy was violated when the
court entered convictions for both second and fourth degree assault; (5) his right to a jury
trial was violated when the trial court included prior convictions in his offender score;
and (6) legal financial obligations were improperly ordered.
FILED
JULY 8, 2025
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 39840-4-III
State v. Quintanilla
2
We agree Mr. Quintanilla’s right to a public trial was violated and reverse his
convictions. Because the violation of his right to a public trial is dispositive, we decline
review of his remaining assignments of error.
BACKGROUND
In May 2022, Mr. Quintanilla’s then girlfriend, X.B.-O.,1 reported to a law
enforcement officer that Mr. Quintanilla had assaulted her, damaged her property, and
threatened to kill her if she reported the assaults. Mr. Quintanilla was subsequently
charged with assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, felony harassment,
assault in the fourth degree, and malicious mischief in the third degree aforementioned
crimes.
The case proceeded to a jury trial. During voir dire, the State requested an
in-chambers meeting:
[THE COURT]: . . . Before I turn it over to the lawyers for voir dire
questions, I have some general questions.
[THE STATE]: Your Honor, my apologies. I think we may need to
see you in chambers. Something has just come to my attention I’d like to
report.
THE COURT: Okay. And, ladies and gentlemen, don’t be
particularly shocked or surprised. The one thing we know about these trials
is unexpected things happen and they become expected almost at some
point. So, we’re gonna take a quick break. We’re gonna get back on the
1 We refer to the witness by her initials only unless necessary for the disposition of
the issue.

No. 39840-4-III
State v. Quintanilla
3
record lickety-split, if that’s a legal term. And, for a moment, why don’t we
go ahead and go off the record and we’ll be back as soon as we can.
RECESS TAKEN
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, everyone for your patience. We
do try and be respectful of your time. And, we try and get this process
moving as much as we can.
So, all right. I need to excuse two jurors today. And, that would be
Jurors Nos. 6 and 8. It’s been decided that we will excuse Juror Nos. 6
and—yep, you’re Juror No. 8 and 6. Don’t worry. No one is any trouble. It’s
a very mysterious thing sometimes the way these courts work. Trust me
when I say we can tell you anything you want to know after the conclusion
of the trial. But, for today, I am required to tell you folks you’re excused, 6
and 8, and if you wouldn’t mind just setting your cards—oh, the Bailiff will
take the cards. Mr. Munoz will take those. We do thank you both for your
time in coming up today. We appreciate it very much. All right. And,
don’t—don’t hesitate to call if you want to hear the—the whole gory detail
on why.
Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 241-42.
The trial concluded with the jury finding Mr. Quintanilla not guilty of assault in
the first degree and malicious mischief in the third degree, but guilty of assault in the
second degree, felony harassment, and assault in the fourth degree. Mr. Quintanilla was
later sentenced.
Mr. Quintanilla timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Quintanilla argues his right to a public trial was violated when the attorneys
and judge met in the judge’s chambers before dismissing two jurors without explanation.
We agree with Mr. Quintanilla and reverse.

No. 39840-4-III
State v. Quintanilla
4
Article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution guarantee an accused the right to a public trial. State v.
Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1, 9, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012). We review alleged violations of a
defendant’s public trial right de novo. Id.
“[N]ot every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate
the right to a public trial, or constitute a closure if closed to the public.” State v.
Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 71, 292 P.3d 715 (2012); In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177
Wn.2d 1, 28-29, 296 P.3d 872 (2013). Thus, the preliminary determination is whether
the proceeding at issue implicates a defendant’s public trial right. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at
71.
The public trial right is implicated if the proceeding falls within a specific
category of trial proceedings that our Supreme Court has already established implicates
the public trial right. State v. Wilson, 174 Wn. App. 328, 335, 298 P.3d 148 (2013). If
the proceeding does not fall into such a category, our Supreme Court has adopted a two-
part “experience and logic” test to analyze whether the right is implicated. Sublett, 176
Wn.2d at 72. The two prongs of the test are: (1) whether the place and process have
historically been open to the general public and the press (experience prong), and (2)
whether the public’s access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the
particular process in question (logic prong). Wilson, 174 Wn. App. at 335; Sublett, 176

No. 39840-4-III
State v. Quintanilla
5
Wn.2d at 73. Both the experience and logic test inquiries must be answered in the
affirmative to implicate the public trial right. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73.
If a defendant’s public trial right is implicated, we next look to whether a closure
occurred without a Bone-Club 2 analysis. State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29, 35, 288 P.3d
1126 (2012). A Bone-Club analysis consists of weighing five criteria:
1. The proponent of closure or sealing must make some showing [of a
compelling interest], and where that need is based on a right other than an
accused’s right to a fair trial, the proponent must show a “serious and
imminent threat” to that right.
2. Anyone present when the closure motion is made must be given an
opportunity to object to the closure.
3. The proposed method for curtailing open access must be the least
restrictive means available for protecting the threatened interests.
4. The court must weigh the competing interests of the proponent of closure
and the public.
5. The order must be no broader in its application or duration than
necessary to serve its purpose.
128 Wn.2d at 258-59. If a closure occurs without a Bone-Club analysis, the error is
structural and warrants a new trial. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d at 35.
Mr. Quintanilla argues his right to a public trial was violated when the attorneys
and judge met in the judge’s chambers during voir dire, followed by the judge dismissing
two jurors without explanation. It is undisputed that a Bone-Club analysis was not
2 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).

No. 39840-4-III
State v. Quintanilla
6
conducted. Thus, the questions are whether Mr. Quintanilla’s right to a public trial was
implicated and whether a closure occurred. We answer each question in the affirmative.
Public Trial
Our Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he guarantee of open proceedings
extends in criminal cases to” the jury selection process. State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222,
226, 217 P.3d 310 (2009). The Supreme Court has made clear that “‘a closed jury
selection process harms the defendant by preventing his or her family from contributing
their knowledge or insight to jury selection and by preventing the venire from seeing the
interested individuals.’” Id. at 227 (quoting State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 515,
122 P.3d 150 (2005)). Because our Supreme Court has determined a courtroom closure
during voir dire implicates a defendant’s public trial right, we need not proceed to the
experience and logic test. Mr. Quintanilla’s public trial right was implicated.
Closure
When “a trial court conducts a court proceeding in chambers, thus causing the
public to be excluded, there is a closure.” State v. Whitlock, 195 Wn. App. 745, 754-55,
381 P.3d 1250 (2016), aff’d, 188 Wn.2d 511, 396 P.3d 310 (2017). Here, the public was
excluded from voir dire when the court held an in-chambers meeting, presumably about
the fitness of jurors 6 and 8 to serve. When court reconvened, the judge dismissed jurors
6 and 8 without explanation, stating, “[i]t’s a very mysterious thing sometimes the way
these courts work. Trust me when I say we can tell you anything you want to know after

No. 39840-4-III
State v. Quintanilla
7
the conclusion of the trial.” RP at 241. No explanation was given as to why jurors 6 and
8 were dismissed, and no record was made of what was discussed in chambers.
Because Mr. Quintanilla’s public trial right was implicated and a courtroom
closure occurred during voir dire in the absence of a Bone-Club analysis, Mr.
Quintanilla’s right to a public trial was violated. This is a structural error entitling
Mr. Quintanilla to a new trial.3
CONCLUSION
We reverse Mr. Quintanilla’s convictions and remand for a new trial.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Cooney, J.
WE CONCUR:
Murphy, M. 	Staab, A.C.J.
3 The State’s primary argument is that Mr. Quintanilla did not object to the court
closure. The State cites no authority for its contention that Mr. Quintanilla needed to
object to preserve this issue, and our Supreme Court has noted that a defendant’s failure
to object does not waive the issue. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 257 (“We also note
Defendant’s failure to object contemporaneously did not effect a waiver.”).