Crawford v. State
404 P.3d 204
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Keane-Alexander Crawford was charged with murder, qualified for appointed counsel, but waived counsel and proceeded largely pro se with standby counsel assistance.
- Crawford repeatedly requested public funds for investigative and expert services (medical, psychiatric, toxicology, DNA, "consciousness"/choking experts), but largely failed to identify specific experts, opinions, or how their analyses would be significant to his defense.
- The superior court denied most funding requests for lack of a showing that the proposed experts would be a "significant component" of the defense; one specific DNA testing request was denied after the court found reasonable counsel would not spend funds on it (no appeal of that ruling).
- Crawford argued the denials violated due process and that AS 18.85.100(a) and Admin. R. 12(e) require public funding of ancillary litigation services even for defendants who decline public defender representation.
- The Court of Appeals held Crawford failed to make the Ake/Caldwell threshold showing of necessity for experts and therefore affirmed; it also interpreted AS 18.85.100(a) and Admin. R. 12(e) as not requiring public funding of ancillary services for defendants who waive public counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crawford’s due process right required public funding for experts when he waived public counsel | Crawford: Ake guarantees public funding for experts a reasonable attorney would obtain; waiver of counsel should not bar funding for necessary experts | State: Ake requires a threshold showing that expert assistance will be a significant component of the defense; Crawford failed to make that showing | Held: Denial proper — Crawford did not make the required Ake/Caldwell showing, so no due process violation |
| Whether AS 18.85.100(a) obligates the Public Defender Agency to fund ancillary services for defendants who decline agency representation | Crawford: The statute grants separable rights to (1) counsel and (2) necessary services/facilities, so funding should be available even if counsel is declined | State/Public Defender: The statute links ancillary services to representation; services are ancillary to agency-provided representation | Held: AS 18.85.100(a) is an integrated package — ancillary services are tied to agency representation and not severable for pro se defendants |
| Whether Admin. R. 12(e) permits courts to directly appoint and fund investigators/experts for indigent defendants who waive counsel | Crawford: Rule 12(e) authorizes appointment/compensation for "other persons" and lists investigation/expert costs, so courts can fund these services | State/Public Defender: Rule 12(e) contemplates appointment of representatives (counsel/guardian/ad litem/other representative) who may incur reimbursable expenses; it does not authorize direct funding to pro se defendants | Held: Rule 12(e) does not authorize courts to directly appoint or fund investigators/experts for defendants who have waived counsel; reimbursement provisions apply to appointed representatives only |
| Whether court should resolve constitutional question of whether linking funding to acceptance of public counsel is permissible | Crawford: Constitutional challenge to requiring acceptance of public counsel as condition for ancillary funding | State: Court unnecessary because Crawford failed Ake showing | Held: Court abstained from deciding constitutionality as unnecessary to resolution; left to legislature to address policy/funding questions if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (due process requires state-provided psychiatric assistance where sanity is likely a significant factor and defendant is indigent)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (trial court may deny expert funding when defendant offers only undeveloped assertions of benefit)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (indigent defendants have a constitutional right to counsel)
- Jackson v. State, 413 P.2d 488 (Alaska 1966) (historical view that private bar could be conscripted to represent indigents; discussion of legislative role in funding)
- DeLisio v. Superior Court, 740 P.2d 437 (Alaska 1987) (overruling Jackson as to uncompensated appointments)
- State v. Jones, 759 P.2d 558 (Alaska App. 1988) (attorney expenditure should be guided by reasonable indication of materiality; defendant not entitled to exhaustive investigation)