Bates v. State, 258 P.3d 851

Bates broke into the residence where his former girlfriend Ouilette lived and attacked Ouilette, Iyatunguk (the primary renter), and Braun (a friend of Iyatunguk).
Bates was convicted of attempted murder for the Ouilette assault, third-degree assault for the Iyatunguk assault, and fourth-degree assault for the Braun assault.
Evidence Rule 404(b)(4) allowed the prosecutor to introduce Bates's prior domestic-violence assaults against Ouilette and a former girlfriend/son.
AS 18.66.990 defines domestic violence and includes a broad concept of household members, which the court applied to determine admissibility of the 404(b) evidence.
The court also admitted, over objection, a 911-call recording where Bates spoke to the dispatcher, relying on circumstantial identification that the speaker was Bates.
The superior court sentenced Bates to 30 years for attempted murder plus consecutive 2 and 1 year sentences, with Bates later challenging parole eligibility and the court's reasoning on that restriction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the definition of household member is constitutionally vague.	Bates asserts vagueness in dating/sexual-relationship terms.	State contends definitions are sufficiently definite.	Definitions are sufficiently definite under the facts.
Whether dating and sexual relationship terms provide an ascertainable standard for 404(b)(4).	Vagueness prevents admissibility of prior acts.	Terms give trial judges a workable standard.	Terms provide ascertainable standard; 404(b)(4) valid as applied.
Whether the 911-call recording was properly admitted without explicit voice identification.	No witness identified the voice on the latter portion of the call.	Authentication can be circumstantial under Rule 104(b).	Circumstantial evidence sufficed to support admissibility under Rule 104(b).
Whether the parole-ineligibility restriction was adequately explained in sentencing.	Restriction insufficiently justified under Hinson/Stern.	Restriction should be upheld if supported by record.	Remand to reconsider parole restriction due to inadequate explanation.

Williams v. Alaska Department of Revenue, 895 P.2d 99 (Alaska 1995) ( vagueness standard for statutory interpretation; limited risk in workers' compensation context)
R.R. v. State, 919 P.2d 754 (Alaska 1996) ( vagueness framework; limited to adjudicative context)
Bingaman v. State, 76 P.3d 398 (Alaska App.2003) (domestic-violence definition broad interpretation of 'household member')