355 P.3d 597
Alaska Ct. App.2015Background
- In Aug. 2011 in Homer, AK, Michael Glasgow rode a bike past Timothy Whitehead, pulled a knife and jabbed at an unleashed dog; he later returned on foot toward Whitehead holding the knife and yelled at him. Whitehead and his son testified they feared Glasgow would stab him. Glasgow rode away and was later charged with third-degree assault.
- Glasgow’s defense at trial was that he did not have the knife in his hand when he walked back toward Whitehead; the jury rejected that defense and convicted him.
- At trial Glasgow sought jury instructions based on Homer municipal animal-control ordinances and Alaska statutes authorizing killing an at-large dog; the trial court refused those instructions.
- At sentencing the court imposed standard evaluations and probation, plus a special probation condition barring Glasgow from possessing, applying for, or obtaining a medical marijuana card for the three-year probation term.
- Glasgow appealed, arguing (1) the refusal to give the animal-control/statute instructions deprived him of his right to present a defense and (2) the marijuana-card probation condition was overbroad and infringed his constitutional medical-privacy rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing jury instructions on municipal/state animal-control laws and statutes authorizing killing at-large dogs | Glasgow: instructions were relevant to show Whitehead’s dogs frightened him and were contributory to his conduct | State: those laws don’t authorize assaulting a dog owner; irrelevant to the charged offense | No error. Court held the laws were not applicable defenses; refusal did not violate right to present a defense |
| Whether refusing those instructions violated Glasgow’s due process/right to present a defense | Glasgow: exclusion prevented full presentation of his defense (context and justification) | State: instruction on inapplicable statutes not required; trial court may decline instructions irrelevant to the controversy | Affirmed; a defendant is not entitled to instructions on laws that do not support a cognizable defense or disputed legal issue |
| Whether the probation condition barring applying for/possessing a medical marijuana card was valid | Glasgow: the condition impermissibly interferes with constitutional privacy and medical decision-making; not narrowly tailored | State: issue forfeited by counsel not objecting; court had concern about marijuana’s effect on evaluation/rehabilitation | Vacated. Condition implicates medical privacy, required strict scrutiny; court’s stated reasons did not justify a blanket three-year ban and less-restrictive alternatives weren’t considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Smithart v. State, 988 P.2d 583 (Alaska 1999) (defendant’s right to present a defense)
- Ostlund v. State, 51 P.3d 938 (Alaska App. 2002) (limits on entitlement to jury instructions)
- Shane v. Rhines, 672 P.2d 895 (Alaska 1983) (trial court may refuse instructions not applicable to the controversy)
- Simants v. State, 329 P.3d 1033 (Alaska App. 2014) (probation conditions must relate to rehabilitation/public protection and not unduly restrict liberty)
- Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339 (Alaska 2009) (Alaskan constitutional protection for medical decision-making/privacy)
- Rollins v. Ulmer, 15 P.3d 749 (Alaska 2001) (context of Alaska’s medical marijuana registry)