314 P.3d 1219
Alaska Ct. App.2013Background
- Angasan was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor based on text-message exchanges with a 13-year-old and a subsequent sexual act in a family vehicle.
- Months after sentencing, Angasan moved for a new trial under Criminal Rule 33, claiming new exculpatory evidence via four affidavits from relatives.
- Superior Court held the affidavits were known to Angasan or his counsel at trial and thus not 'newly discovered' under Salinas v. State.
- Angasan argued Rule 33(a) allows a new-trial based on any unpresented evidence, not only newly discovered evidence, and that an evidentiary hearing was required.
- The court treated the motion as an ineffective-assistance claim was inappropriate, and concluded the five-day deadline in Rule 33(c) did not apply to newly discovered evidence.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding Salinas restrictions apply to Rule 33(a) motions based on new evidence, and none of the four affidavits were newly discovered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 33(a) allows 'interest of justice' relief for unpresented evidence bypassing Salinas. | Angasan: Rule 33(a) grants a broad 'interest of justice' remedy for new evidence. | Angasan: The rule should not be limited by Salinas; Rule 33(a) can authorize relief for non-newly discovered evidence. | No; Salinas restrictions apply to Rule 33 motions based on new evidence. |
| Whether 'newly discovered' requirements under Salinas apply to Angasan's four affidavits. | Angasan: Some affidavits could be newly discovered or not previously known. | State: All four affidavits were known or discoverable with diligence, so none qualify as newly discovered. | Yes; none of the affidavits satisfied Salinas' newly discovered standard. |
| Whether Peter Angasan's affidavit could be newly discovered evidence under Salinas. | Angasan: Peter's witness existence was newly discovered due to later contact and inability to locate earlier. | State: Peter's existence was not newly discovered; facts were knowable or discoverable with diligence. | No; Peter's testimony did not meet Salinas' diligence/note unknown requirements. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. | Angasan: A hearing was necessary to assess the credibility and impact of the new evidence. | State: The pleadings and record showed no basis for an evidentiary hearing on the new-evidence claims. | Affirmed denial; no hearing required given the Salinas deficiencies. |
| Whether the nurse's report and 'testimonial completeness' issue was preserved for appeal. | Angasan: The defense sought conditional admission to show broader context of the victim's conduct. | State: The issue was not properly preserved because the nurse's report was not introduced at trial. | Preservation failed; trial court ruling affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. State, 373 P.2d 512 (Alaska 1962) (newly discovered evidence requires unknown to defense and not discoverable with diligence)
- Lewis v. State, 901 P.2d 448 (Alaska App. 1995) (Rule 35.1 vs Rule 33; limits on using new evidence to overturn conviction)
- Lindhag v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 123 P.3d 948 (Alaska 2005) (new evidence must not be discoverable earlier to avoid back-door retrial)
- LaBrake v. State, 152 P.3d 474 (Alaska App. 2007) (presumption of truth in pleadings; not all assertions are entitled to truth)