Anderson v. State
289 P.3d 1
Alaska Ct. App.2012Background
- Anderson convicted of ten counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor based on abuse of three victims under age 11.
- He appeals on four points: access restriction, lack of a unanimity instruction, sufficiency of the evidence for G.B. counts, and sentencing plus attorney’s fee.
- The court allowed a temporary courtroom restriction during the three victims’ testimony by posting a ‘closed hearing’ sign; defense agreed; the court applied invited-error principles.
- The trial court did not instruct jurors on factual unanimity for each count; the court applied Neder/Recuenco harmless-error framework to assess whether omission was harmless.
- The court finds sufficient evidence to support Counts 2 and 3 (G.B.) and upholds other convictions; Count 1 is acquitted.
- Judge White imposed a composite sentence of 37 years with 18 years suspended (19 to serve) within presumptive ranges and rejected an upward departure; the case is remanded to reconsider the attorney’s fee under Rule 39(d) and Rule 53.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the public access restriction was improper | Anderson argues the restriction violated the public-trial right. | The action was invited error and not obviously improper. | No reversible error; action was invited and harmless under standard. |
| Whether the lack of a unanimity instruction was plain error | Anderson argues counts lacked required factual unanimity. | No objection; trial strategy suggested no practical effect. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Neder/Loc-kuk framework. |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient for Counts 2 and 3 (G.B.) | The evidence could not prove the exact incidents for these counts. | Sufficient corroboration existed; a July 2006 onset supported by multiple witnesses. | Counts 2 and 3 supported; conviction affirmed. |
| Whether the sentence is clearly mistaken | The 19-year composite sentence was excessive. | Judicial factors supported a lengthy sentence for a predator offender. | Sentence not clearly mistaken; within historical guidelines for multiple victims. |
| Whether the attorney’s fee should be reconsidered | Rule 39(d) presumes trial-counsel involvement; fee should reflect that. | Equity favors adjustment given private trial representation. | Remand for reconsideration of the attorney's fee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington v. State, 703 P.2d 436 (Alaska App. 1985) (requires unanimity on underlying conduct for each count in sexual-abuse cases)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error analysis for missing jury element; materiality issue test)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (U.S. 2006) (harmless-error test for Blakely-type sentencing error)
- Lockuk v. State, 153 P.3d 1012 (Alaska App. 2007) (Blakely error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
- Potts v. State, 712 P.2d 385 (Alaska App. 1985) (plain-error analysis and strategic considerations in unanimity context)
- Simon v. State, 121 P.3d 815 (Alaska App. 2005) (standard for reviewing challenged trial errors)