Charles Fenning Akelkok v. State of Alaska, 475 P.3d 1136

On June 2, 2016, Charles Akelkok was discovered in bed with another woman; his daughter Alicia confronted him and he assaulted her (punching and placing a hand near her throat). Police found injuries to Alicia and Akelkok intoxicated.
A grand jury indicted Akelkok for second-degree assault (strangulation) and third-degree recidivist assault (based on a fourth-degree assault with two prior qualifying convictions). Jury acquitted on second-degree count and convicted of fourth-degree assault; prior convictions proved, yielding third-degree recidivist conviction.
Annie Sergie (Akelkok’s then‑girlfriend) was subpoenaed after previously failing to appear for a grand jury; when brought to trial she registered a .248 breath alcohol level and had earlier been located with a "bowl of heroin." The court briefly ordered custody, then reversed course and conducted a competency colloquy; Sergie then testified.
Defense argued at trial and on appeal that the court’s threats or custodial actions coerced Sergie’s testimony in violation of Akelkok’s due process rights (relying on Raphael v. State).
The Court of Appeals reviewed the totality of circumstances, concluded the court did not coerce testimony (distinguishing Raphael), affirmed the conviction, but remanded to correct the presentence report per Criminal Rule 32.1(f)(5).

Issue	Akelkok's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court coerced Sergie’s testimony, violating due process	Court’s admonitions, issuance of warrant, brief custody and repeated interventions produced coercion akin to Raphael	Court acted to secure a recalcitrant, previously absent witness and ensured competency; conduct did not force testimony content	No coercion under totality of circumstances; testimony admissible and due process not violated
Whether the presentence report complied with court’s redaction order	PSR should reflect the court’s deletions ordered at sentencing	State suggested amendment rather than redaction but failed to cross‑appeal	Remand for the trial court to produce and distribute a corrected, approved PSR reflecting the ordered redactions; State waived alternative claim

Raphael v. State, 994 P.2d 1004 (Alaska 2000) (holding custodial treatment without notice or hearing coerced witness testimony and violated defendant’s due process)
In re Curda, 49 P.3d 255 (Alaska 2002) (discussing limits on remedial use of incarceration to secure witnesses)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for coerced confessions and involuntary testimony)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (totality‑of‑circumstances analysis principle)
Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1976) (defining coercion in constitutional contexts)
United States v. Leon‑Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussing promises or threats that overbear will)
Christian v. State, 276 P.3d 479 (Alaska App. 2012) (rule on presentence report corrections and distribution)
Cragg v. State, 957 P.2d 1365 (Alaska App. 1998) (procedural requirements for PSR handling)
Peterson v. Ek, 93 P.3d 458 (Alaska 2004) (failure to file cross‑appeal waives challenge to lower court rulings)