Adams v. State
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 27
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2007 police stopped Frank Adams after a highway chase and found Stacey Johnston’s body in his car; Adams was arrested and later charged with first-degree murder and evidence tampering.
- While at the station, Adams twice expressed that he wanted an attorney; officers (Sgt. Wallner and Det. Klinkhart) nonetheless engaged him and conducted an interview after advising Miranda rights; the interview was videotaped.
- During the interview Adams repeatedly denied culpability and described facts implicating drug dealers; he also appeared to consent to limited discussion and declined to consent to a cabin search pending counsel.
- Adams was convicted; post-trial he moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance for failure to object under the Confrontation Clause to testimony by Deputy Medical Examiner Robert Whitmore, who relied in part on observations from the deceased autopsy performer (Dr. Fallico).
- At sentencing the judge imposed consecutive terms (99 + 3 years = 102 years) and barred discretionary parole under AS 12.55.115 based on the brutality of the crime and Adams’s extensive violent history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers violated Edwards/ Miranda by initiating post-arrest contact after Adams had invoked counsel | Adams: officers impermissibly re-initiated interrogation after an invocation, so statements should be suppressed | State: invocation was unclear/second-hand; officers sought clarification and Adams then initiated the conversation | Court: even assuming an Edwards violation, Adams initiated the subsequent discussion and statements are admissible |
| Whether Adams invoked his Miranda right during the middle of the interview (re: consent to search) | Adams: his mid-interview “I need an attorney” was a general invocation that terminated questioning | State: it was a narrow request to consult before consenting to a search; questioning continued on defendant’s initiative | Court: the remark was limited to the search issue; interview was not tainted and statements stand |
| Whether Sixth Amendment right to counsel (appointed in unrelated Anchorage case) barred questioning about the homicide | Adams: appointed counsel in driving/resisting case extended to the homicide because the matters were connected | State: the Anchorage charges were legally distinct; appointment did not extend to unrelated murder investigation | Court: Sixth Amendment right was case-specific; no extension to the murder, so no violation |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object under the Confrontation Clause to Whitmore’s testimony (which relied partly on non-testifying pathologist’s observations) | Adams: counsel should have objected; Whitmore relied on Fallico’s observations so testimony was testimonial and barred | State: Whitmore offered independent analysis of raw data; prevailing law permits such expert testimony; objection would likely fail | Court: No prima facie ineffective assistance — most of Whitmore’s testimony was his own analysis; any objection would likely fail given legal uncertainty; new trial denied |
| Whether sentencing court abused discretion by eliminating discretionary parole eligibility | Adams: judge provided inadequate justification; future dangerousness so far in future is speculative | State: detailed sentencing memorandum and evidence of gratuitous violence and long violent history justify parole bar | Court: sentencing judge’s findings supported by record; parole ineligibility not clearly mistaken |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (Edwards rule on invoking counsel during custodial interrogation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial statements)
- Vann v. State, 229 P.3d 197 (Alaska App.) (expert may testify if offering independent analysis of underlying raw data)
- State v. Navarette, 294 P.3d 435 (N.M. 2013) (distinguishing raw-data-based expert opinion from subjective autopsy observations that are testimonial)
- State v. Kennedy, 735 S.E.2d 905 (W.Va. 2012) (confrontation clause bars testimony that merely transmits non-testifying pathologist’s conclusions)
- State v. Steffensen, 902 P.2d 340 (Alaska App. 1995) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims based on failure to pursue motions)
- Dorsey v. United States, 60 A.3d 1171 (D.C. App. 2013) (statements admissible post-Edwards if defendant initiated and not tainted)
- Malloy v. State, 1 P.3d 1266 (Alaska App.) (voluntariness turns on whether police conduct overbore defendant’s will)