276 P.3d 479
Alaska Ct. App.2012Background
- Christian murdered Lindstrom on Jan 28, 2006, stole Lindstrom's wallet and used his credit/debit cards for numerous purchases.
- Greenlee, a friend, aided in the aftermath; Greenlee later indicated knowledge of the murder and location of the body.
- Police recovered Lindstrom's body from an outhouse pit; autopsy showed extensive injuries, with later testimony questioning torture findings.
- Pre-sentence report included Dr. Fallico's torture analysis, later disputed by Dr. Whitmore; defense sought removal of Fallico's conclusions from the report.
- Judge Volland declined to delete Fallico's conclusions but gave more weight to Whitmore; on appeal, the State conceded error and the court was asked to correct the report.
- Christian challenged multiple rulings including the admission of evidence related to an attempted bank robbery by Greenlee and confrontation-clause issues; the court addressed these challenges and affirmed most rulings, with the exception noted on the pre-sentence report amendment.
- Christian received a 99-year murder sentence and a 7 years, 2 months consecutive sentence for evidence tampering and theft, totaling 106 years and 2 months; the court affirmed the composite sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-sentence report deletion of Fallico analysis | Christian argues Rule 32.1(f)(5) requires deletion of untested Fallico findings. | State concedes Fallico’s conclusions were unproved and should be deleted. | Pre-sentence report must be corrected; Fallico portion deleted. |
| Defendant’s right to deliver opening statement | Christian sought to personally deliver defense opening and cross-examine witnesses. | Judge properly denied hybrid representation. | Denial affirmed; no reversible error given safeguards. |
| Admission of evidence linking to attempted bank robbery | Evidence explains relationship between Christian and Greenlee and motive. | Unrelated to homicide; risk of prejudice. | Evidence properly admitted to explain investigation and relationships. |
| Confrontation rights and Greenlee statements | Greenlee’s statements via jail calls and note implicate Christian. | Statements offered for context/non-hearsay purposes. | No Crawford violation; non-hearsay/context purpose valid. |
| Plain error regarding Greenlee note admission | Note shows Christian’s involvement; admissible hearsay objection. | Note used for context, not substantive proof; plain error review. | Admission not plain error; not reversible. |
| Composite sentence sufficiency under Neal rule | Composite term exceeded max without Neal justification. | Record shows necessity to deter due to brutality and history. | Composite sentence not clearly mistaken; Neal satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cragg v. State, 957 P.2d 1365 (Alaska App. 1998) (duty to delete unproved factual allegations from pre-sentence report)
- Ortberg v. State, 751 P.2d 1368 (Alaska App. 1988) (co-counsel/hybrid representation distinction; defendant’s interest in trial management)
- Cano v. Anchorage, 627 P.2d 660 (Alaska App. 1981) (hybrid representation considerations with defendant’s control over defense)
- Garrison v. State, 762 P.2d 465 (Alaska App. 1988) (distinction between stand-by guidance and substitution in representation)
- Neal v. State, 628 P.2d 19 (Alaska 1981) ( Neal rule regarding Neal v. State; Neal findings may be inferred from record)
- Phelps v. State, 236 P.3d 381 (Alaska App. 2010) ( Neal/maximum term composite sentencing considerations)
- Estes v. State, 249 P.3d 313 (Alaska App. 2011) (confrontation clause context/ non-hearsay use of statements)
- Cragg v. State, 957 P.2d 1365 (Alaska App. 1998) (duty to delete unproved factual allegations from pre-sentence report)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial vs non-testimonial statements)
- United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (non-hearsay context statements not violating confrontation clause)