Hess v. State, 435 P.3d 876

Christopher Hess was tried for second-degree and third-degree assault for allegedly strangling his mother, Patricia Hess; conviction followed a jury trial.
The State’s case relied primarily on Patricia’s testimony and two officer witnesses; defense presented testimony that Patricia had a reputation for dishonesty and that she was intoxicated and off medication.
In closing, the prosecutor repeatedly characterized defense counsel’s strategy as “vilifying” the victim and urged the jury to discredit the defense as a common tactic, including in rebuttal; defense made no contemporaneous objection at trial.
Hess raised prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal, arguing the remarks were plain error under Adams v. State.
The Alaska Court of Appeals acknowledged impropriety but found no plain error; the Alaska Supreme Court granted review, applied the Adams plain-error test, and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s closing comments attacking defense counsel’s credibility and accusing the defense of "vilifying" the victim were improper	Prosecutor argued remarks were fair commentary on defense theory and credibility	Hess argued remarks were improper attacks on defense counsel and irrelevant to evidence	Court: Remarks were improper and violated professional and ethical limits on argument
Whether the improper remarks constituted plain error under Alaska’s Adams test	N/A (State urged no plain error on appeal)	Hess argued error met all four Adams prongs (error, obviousness, affected substantial rights, prejudicial)	Court: All four Adams prongs satisfied; plain error found
Whether the error affected substantial rights / fundamental fairness	State implicitly argued overall record cured any error	Hess: Comments targeted defense strategy, went to credibility in a case hinging on conflicting testimony, so fundamental fairness affected	Court: Error implicated important rights and could affect fundamental fairness
Whether the error was prejudicial (reasonable probability of affecting outcome)	State argued evidence supported convictions despite remarks	Hess contended remarks during both initial closing and rebuttal, without curative instruction, likely affected outcome	Court: Given close, credibility-driven case and repeated remarks, reasonable probability of affecting outcome established; new trial required

Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (articulating Alaska’s four‑part plain error test)
Rogers v. State, 280 P.3d 582 (Alaska App. 2012) (court of appeals precedent considered by lower court)
Goldsbury v. State, 342 P.3d 834 (Alaska 2015) (statements during closing arguments more likely to be prejudicial)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (federal plain‑error framework referenced for comparison)