Augustine v. State
355 P.3d 573
Alaska Ct. App.2015Background
- Arthur Augustine was convicted of sexually abusing two granddaughters based largely on four video-recorded pretrial interviews of the children conducted by Investigator Yvonne Howell; the State did not call the children to testify at trial.
- The trial court admitted the recordings under Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(8), which allows admission of recorded statements of crime victims under 16 if eight foundational criteria (A)–(H) are met.
- Defense raised detailed reliability challenges (via expert Dr. John Yuille) alleging leading questions, multiple-choice prompts, interviewer bias, distracting interview methods, and pre-interview influence by the children’s mother.
- The trial judge admitted the recordings but made no independent factual findings on subsections (d)(8)(F) (avoidance of undue influence) or (d)(8)(H) (judge’s reliability/trustworthiness determination), instead saying those issues went to the jury.
- On appeal the court (1) held the judge erred by failing to perform the required judicial gatekeeping under (F) and (H) and remanded for reconsideration, (2) found the evidence sufficient to uphold conviction as to the older child (M.Y.) but insufficient to support penetration as to the younger child (T.Y.), and (3) vacated sentencing and remanded for resentencing because the superior court misapplied rules on concurrent vs. consecutive terms.
Issues
| Issue | State/Prosecution Argument | Augustine/Defense Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial judge satisfied Rule 801(d)(8)(F) — did the interview "avoid undue influence"? | Recordings met the rule; alleged defects go to credibility and can be addressed at trial. | Interviews contained leading/multiple-choice questions, interviewer bias, and pre-interview parental influence, undermining avoidance of undue influence. | Judge must make affirmative findings; here the judge failed to independently evaluate (F); remand for reconsideration. |
| Whether trial judge satisfied Rule 801(d)(8)(H) — judge’s independent determination that statements are sufficiently reliable and in interests of justice | Availability of recordings and procedural compliance made them admissible; reliability is for jury to weigh. | Judicial review required when defense objects; expert critiques raise substantial reliability concerns. | (H) requires opportunity to view and an independent judicial reliability determination when challenged; trial judge erred by not doing so; remand. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of sexual penetration as to T.Y. | T.Y. said it hurt when touched; jury could infer penetration (esp. in light of evidence about M.Y.). | T.Y.’s responses about penetration were incoherent and never clearly describe internal penetration. | Evidence as to penetration of T.Y. was speculative and legally insufficient; conviction for first-degree sexual abuse (penetration) as to T.Y. reversed; conviction for sexual contact upheld. |
| Sentencing error—application of consecutive terms | Imposition of consecutive 99-year terms was appropriate given priors. | Superior court misapplied statutory rules on partial concurrency; sentencing must be recalculated. | Sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing because the court misunderstood AS 12.55.127 concurrency rules; minimum composite term reduced and must be recalculated given reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tegoseak v. State, 221 P.3d 345 (Alaska App.) (discusses interviewer influence and subtle cues affecting witness statements)
- Davison v. State, 282 P.3d 1262 (Alaska) (addresses forensic vs. medical purpose in child-exam statements)
- Reutter v. State, 886 P.2d 1298 (Alaska App.) (discusses foundational proof standard and Maryland v. Craig framework for child testimony accommodations)
- People v. Trevino, 704 P.2d 719 (Cal.) (evidence too speculative to support conviction)
- People v. Giuliano, 482 N.E.2d 557 (N.Y.) (insufficient and speculative evidence cannot sustain conviction)