State v. Slert
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
¶1
Johanson, C.J.
On remand, our Supreme Court asks us to consider whether the trial court’s violation of Kenneth Lane Slert’s constitutional right to be present when several jurors were excused outside his presence was harmless error. Slert argues that the error was not harmless because the State cannot demonstrate that these excused jurors had no chance to sit on the jury. We hold that the State fails to show that the trial court’s violation of Slert’s constitutional right to be present during jury selection was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse his conviction and…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- State v. IrbyWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. CaliguriWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. SlertWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. BurdetteCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. SlertWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. SlertWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. SlertWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. SlertWashington Supreme Court · 2016