State Of Washington, Respondent V. James Michael Mcclure, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
JAMES MICHAEL MCCLURE,
Appellant.
No. 	70516-4-1
DIVISION ONE 3E- 	i n
UNPUBLISHED OPINION -'' 	|;
•2- 	'--:-
FILED: 	November 17, 201<C 	%
_ 	en 	c
Appelwick, J. — A jury found McClure guilty of felony harassment. 	McClure
fails to demonstrate that excusal of two jurors prior to presenting the venire for voir
dire violated his public trial right or right to be present at all critical proceedings. 	We
also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish a "true threat" to kill and
the victim's reasonable belief that McClure would carry out his threat. 	We affirm.
FACTS
Between December 2012 and January 2013, James McClure called the Island
County 911 dispatch center more than 100 times, sometimes up to 15 times per
night. 	Each call lasted at least 6 to 7 minutes, and McClure frequently asked to talk
to dispatcher Erin Peterson. 	McClure never reported any emergencies, but generally
talked 	about his years of service 	in the 	Navy, 	his wife, 	and 	poker. 	McClure's
conversations were occasionally rambling and vulgar, and he sometimes sounded
intoxicated.
On 	December 28, 	2012, 	McClure delivered 	a 	suspicious 	package to 	the
dispatch center addressed to Peterson. 	The bomb squad responded and determined
that the package contained playing cards, a book about poker, and some written
notes.

No. 70516-4-1/2
Based on the package incident and McClure's continuing calls, Island County
Sheriff's Lieutenant Mike Hawley began an investigation. 	Lt. Hawley attempted to
contact McClure several times, but he was not home. 	On January 6, 2013, Hawley
spoke with McClure by telephone and threatened him with arrest if he did not stop the
calls.
Immediately after 	the 	conversation 	with Hawley, McClure placed 	another
series of calls to the dispatch center. 	In one of the calls, McClure had the following
conversation with the dispatcher:
JAMES McCLURE: This is a message for whoever the senior
bastard is, you have a Hawley that used to be sheriff.
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.
JAMES McCLURE: I had to sign a letter that said I would not talk
about, discuss or release any press releases for 20 years after I got out
of the Navy. 	And I got out of the Navy on the 31st of May, 1993. 	But
due to Internet technology and everything else, it's leaking out.
So I'm kind of fuzzy a little bit. So I cleared it with three Navy
captains and an admiral.
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.
JAMES McCLURE: Lives right here on Whidbey Island. 	They're
all retired.
ERIN PETERSEN: So you're [sic] weren't supposed to do - You
weren't supposed to talk about what? 	I'm sorry.
JAMES McCLURE: Everything I did in the Navy.
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.

No. 70516-4-1/3
JAMES McCLURE: Okay. And my Navy references are: VO-67,
Albadron-67 (phonetic), VAH-21, Heavy 21.
ERIN PETERSEN: Mm-hmm.
JAMES McCLURE: And I had an Ace of Diamonds and a Queen
of Spades painted on my tail. Yes, ma'am. I put 'em up there myself.
ERIN PETERSEN: Mm-hmm.
JAMES McCLURE: Pretty thing. Pretty thing. 	Gun ships, ma'am.
Gun ships.
And after I talked to captain - 	Well, I talked to the Master Chief
first. 	He's here, too. 	He talked with Captain. 	Captain called me.
Captain called the Admiral. Admiral approved it.
He says, "Forget about that last five months, Chief. Go ahead
and let him have it."
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.
JAMES McCLURE: You know what the Admiral wants to see
happen to Mike Hawley?
ERIN PETERSEN: Oh. I don't know.
JAMES McCLURE: Smoking hole (indiscernible).
JAMES McCLURE: I don't know what he did to piss the admiral
off, but the admiral said, "Chief, you're flying tonight in a black airplane.
We're all going to bed with their wives, you poor E7 son of a bitch. Now,
go get 'em!"
ERIN PETERSEN: Mmm.
JAMES McCLURE: Ahhh! That was terrifying!
ERIN PETERSEN: Goodness.
JAMES 	McCLURE: 	So 	I had 	another 	little -- 	Ma'am, 	I had
another little drink of scotch.

No. 70516-4-1/4
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.
JAMES McCLURE: Put all the switches up. 	Turned all the knobs
to the right. 	Push all the levers all the way forward.
JAMES McCLURE: U.S.S. Barque Road I is ready for combat.
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.
JAMES McCLURE: And so is Navy 902 circling overhead. 	And
them 30-caliber mini guns, they're so heavy my wings are tipping down.
And when I blast, there's nothing left.
I'll take out that filbert or walnut farm, his wife, his kids. 	And you
know what? 	I'll feel no sorrow tomorrow.
ERIN PETERSEN : You would -
JAMES McCLURE: Because the admiral told me to do it.
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.
JAMES McCLURE: And I love it! 	That's why I got 31 years, six
months and 17 days as an E7.
ERIN PETERSEN: Okay.
JAMES McCLURE: Yeah. 	Because they just send me the shit
like this.
ERIN PETERSEN: Oh.
JAMES McCLURE: I think they (indiscernible). 	Because I'm a
Cherokee outlaw. 	They look through the windows to see if they can
find me my buffalo graves.
Hawley lived with his wife M'Liss Hawley on a five acre farm with an orchard of
filberts and walnuts. 	The property is not open to the public. 	Upon learning of the
personal references in McClure's call, Hawley alerted his wife to the threats.

No. 70516-4-1/5
Hawley 	investigated 	a similar series of calls that 	McClure 	placed to the
dispatch center in 2008. 	Hawley and other officers repeatedly contacted McClure at
his house in an unsuccessful effort to persuade him to stop the calls. 	During the
2008 incidents, McClure was arrested for brandishing a flare gun in a local attorney's
office. 	Another attorney obtained a protection order against McClure for threatening
and harassing calls. 	Based on the protection order, Hawley removed 6-12 firearms
from McClure's house.
Lt. Hawley took McClure's threats seriously. 	He knew that McClure "had gone
mobile 	[and] 	was 	out 	driving 	all 	the 	time." 	He 	believed 	that 	McClure 	was
unpredictable and dangerous and could be "spiraling out of control." 	Based on the
information supplied by her husband, Ms. Hawley believed the threat was serious
and credible.
The State charged McClure with one count of felony harassment, threat to kill,
involving 	Ms. 	Hawley 	and 	one 	count 	of 	telephone 	harassment 	involving 	Erin
Peterson. 	Prior to commencement of voir dire in the 	courtroom, the 	trial judge
informed the parties that 11 potential jurors had failed to appear and 2 had been
excused.
The jury found McClure guilty as charged of felony harassment, threat to kill,
and not guilty of telephone harassment. 	The court imposed a three month standard
range term.
-5-

No. 70516-4-1/6
DECISION
McClure contends that his right to a public trial was violated when two jurors
were excused outside of the courtroom before voir dire. 	He also maintains that he
had a constitutional right to be present at the excusal proceeding.
A criminal defendant has a right to a public trial under both the state and
federal constitutions. 	State v. Lormor. 172 Wn.2d 85, 90-91, 257 P.3d 624 (2011);
see U.S. 	Const, 	amends. VI, XIV; Wash. Const, art. 	I, § 22. 	But "'[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. Koss. 	Wn.2d
, 334 P.3d 1042, 1045 (2014) (quoting State v. Sublett. 176 Wn.2d 58, 71, 292
P.3d 715 (2012)). 	Before determining whether a public trial violation occurred, an
appellate court first considers "whether the proceeding at issue was one to which the
constitutional right to a public trial attaches." id.
The court addressed an essentially identical issue in State v. Wilson, 174 Wn.
App. 328, 298 P.3d 148 (2013). 	In Wilson, the bailiff excused two jurors for illness
before voir dire began in the courtroom, 	id. at 332. The excusal was in accordance
with the trial court's written policy, which allowed administrative staff "to excuse jurors
pretrial for illness-related reasons, and rescheduled them for jury service at a later
date." id. 	On appeal, Wilson argued that the excusals violated his right to a public
trial and his right to be present at all crucial proceedings. 	JcL at 333. After examining
the claims in light of the "experience and logic" test, the court disagreed. Id at 337.
Under the "experience" prong, the court noted that no Washington decision
has held that preliminary juror excusals for hardships have historically been open to
-6-

No. 70516-4-1/7
the public. 	]g\ at 342. 	Nor has a court held that the public trial right implicates any
component of jury selection "that does not involve 'voir dire' or a similar jury selection
proceeding involving the exercise of 'peremptory' challenges and 	'for cause' juror
excusals." 	id 	In general, 	the 	trial court and its delegated agents retain broad
discretion to excuse jurors for administrative or hardship 	reasons outside of the
courtroom "provided that the excusals are not the equivalent of peremptory or for
cause juror challenges." 	]d at 344; see also RCW 2.36.100(1); CrR 6.3; State v.
Rice, 120 Wn.2d 549, 561-62, 844 P.2d 416 (1993).
Under the "logic" prong, the Wilson court found no showing that public access
played "'a significant positive role"' in pre voir dire juror excusals for hardships. 	174
Wn. App. at 346 (quoting Sublett. 176 Wn.2d at 73). 	Moreover, because the bailiff
had broad discretion to excuse jury pool members for "hardship" and other reasons,
openness during the pre voir dire excusal proceeding would not have "'enhance[d]
both 	the 	basic fairness 	of the 	criminal 	trial 	and 	the 	appearance 	of fairness 	so
essential to public confidence in the system.'" 	jd. (alteration in original) (quoting
Sublett, 	176 Wn.2d at 75). 	The court concluded that the bailiff's 	administrative
excusal of two jurors for illness did not implicate Wilson's public trial right and no
courtroom closure occurred, 	jd. at 347.
The court also rejected Wilson's claim that he had a constitutional right to be
present during such proceedings, 	id. at 350. 	The court noted that the excusals were
not based on any circumstances related to Wilson personally or to the issues in his
case. 	]d 	Moreover, there was no showing that his presence bore any "'relation,
reasonably substantial, to 	the ful[l]ness of his 	opportunity to 	defend 	against the
-7-

No. 70516-4-1/8
charge'" or "'that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.'" 	jd
(quoting State v. Irbv. 170 Wn.2d 874, 881, 246 P.3d 796 (2011)).
Nothing in the record suggests that the excusals here were related to McClure
personally or to the circumstances of his case or that they involved any error or
abuse of discretion. 	Under Wilson. McClure fails to demonstrate that the excusals
prior to the venire being presented for voir dire violated his public trial right or right to
be present.
McClure contends that, 	unlike Wilson, 	the record 	here fails to reveal who
excused the jurors, when the excusals occurred, and the reason for the excusals.
Although true, these contentions are also fatal to McClure's claim of error. 	Generally,
the 	trial court 	bears 	the 	burden 	of making 	a 	record 	demonstrating 	the 	proper
procedures for closing a court proceeding to which the open trial right attaches.
Koss. 334 P.3d at 1047. 	But the appellant "bears the responsibility to provide a
record showing that such a closure occurred in the first place." ]d (appellant failed to
show that courtroom closure occurred during proceedings related to jury questions).
The trial court informed the parties before voir dire began that there were 11 "no-
shows" 	and 	"two 	excuses." 	McClure 	did 	not 	object 	or 	request 	any 	further
explanation. 	Under the circumstances, he cannot demonstrate a courtroom closure
or trial court error related to the administrative juror excusals.
McClure 	also 	contends 	the 	evidence 	was 	insufficient 	to 	support 	his
harassment conviction. 	He argues that a reasonable person in McClure's position
would not foresee that such enigmatic remarks would be interpreted as a serious
expression of an intent to kill Ms. Hawley and that the State therefore failed to prove
-8-

No. 70516-4-1/9
a "true threat." 	He also claims that the evidence failed to establish that Ms. Hawley
reasonably feared he would carry out the threat to kill her. 	Evidence is sufficient if,
when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, it permits any rational trier of fact
to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 	State v.
Salinas. 119Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068(1992).
In order to convict McClure of harassment as charged, the State was required
to prove, among other things, that he knowingly threatened to kill Ms. Hawley and
that his words placed her "in reasonable fear that the threat to kill would be carried
out." 	See RCW 9A.46.020(1), (2). To avoid violating the First Amendment, a statute
criminalizing 	threatening 	language 	must also 	be 	construed 	"as 	proscribing 	only
unprotected true threats." 	State v. Allen. 176 Wn.2d 611, 626, 294 P.3d 679 (2013).
Here, the trial court instructed the jury that
[t]o be a threat, a statement or act must occur in a context or under
such circumstances where a reasonable person, in the position of the
speaker, would foresee that the statement or act would be interpreted
as a serious expression of intention to carry out the threat rather than
as something said in jest or idle talk.
Even 	if couched 	in the 	language of threats, 	communications are 	not true
threats if they are in fact "merely jokes, idle talk, or hyperbole." State v. Schaler. 169
Wn.2d 274, 283, 236 P.3d 858 (2010). 	The existence of a true threat does not
depend on the subjective intent of the speaker. See State v. Kilburn. 151 Wn.2d 36,
48, 84 P.3d 1215 (2004). 	"It is enough that a reasonable speaker would foresee that
the threat would be considered serious." Schaler. 169 Wn.2d at 283.
Immediately after Lt. Hawley told him that he would be arrested if he placed
any more unnecessary calls to the dispatch center, McClure called the center with "a
-9-

No. 70516-4-1/10
message for whoever the senior bastard is, you have a Hawley that used to be
sheriff." 	He referenced 	his past service on 	Navy "gun ships" 	and 	then told the
dispatcher that "the Admiral" wanted "Mike Hawley" to become a "smoking hole" and
said, "Now, go get 'em." 	McClure, who lived on Barque Road, then announced that
the "U.S.S. Barque Road is ready for combat" and "when I blast, there's nothing left."
"I'll take out that filbert or walnut farm, his wife, his kids. And you know what? 	I'll feel
no sorrow tomorrow."
McClure underscored his intention and threats to blast a "smoking hole" and to
"take out" Hawley's farm and family through specific references to Hawley, to the
location of Hawley's personal residence, to private details of Hawley's residence and
property, and to his military service. 	See State v. Locke. 175 Wn. App. 779, 793, 307
P.3d 	771 	(2013) 	("menace of the communication 	. . . further heightened 	by its
specificity"), review denied. 	Wn.2d 	, 	P.3d 	(2014). 	McClure had no
preexisting amicable relationship or communications with the Hawleys from which he
could 	reasonably expect that they would 	not take his statements seriously. 	See
Kilburn. 151 Wn.2d at 39. 	When Lt. Hawley investigated a similar series of calls in
2008, 	he 	had 	removed 	firearms 	from 	McClure's 	home. 	McClure 	had 	recently
resumed the calls and appeared to be escalating his conduct.
Under the circumstances, a reasonable person in McClure's position would
foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a serious expression of an intent
to carry out the threat. The evidence was sufficient to establish a true threat.
McClure's communication also encompassed a specific threat to "take out" Lt.
Hawley's wife. Ms. Hawley testified that she was away from the house on a business
-10-

No. 70516-4-1/11
trip when her husband called and told her "that my life and his life and our children's
li[ves were] threatened." This was the first time he had informed her about a specific
threat to her life. 	She recognized that her husband believed the threat was "very
serious" and "credible," and she became very upset. 	Lt. Hawley also told her about
McClure's frequent calls to the dispatch center, the suspicious package that he left,
and 	his personal reference to the family's 	nut farm. 	Upon returning home, she
immediately took additional safety precautions, 	including 	no longer taking walks
outside 	in the field 	or walking 	the 	dogs 	in the 	orchard. 	She also 	obtained 	a
concealed weapons permit.
Contrary to 	McClure's suggestion, 	the 	evidence 	establishes 	more than 	a
suspicion that he might do "something." 	Implicit in Ms. Hawley's words and actions is
her belief that McClure had threatened to kill her. 	Viewed in the light most favorable
to the State, the evidence was sufficient to establish that she reasonably believed he
would carry out this threat.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR
ivA	A*A
•11-