Kozevnikoff v. State
433 P.3d 546
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Martin Tyler Kozevnikoff pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor as part of a plea agreement; sentence: 35 years with 10 years suspended, 25 years to serve, and 15 years probation.
- At age 21 he sexually abused two sisters (ages 3 and 5) and an unrelated 5-year-old boy.
- At sentencing the court imposed Special Condition of Probation No. 11 requiring a DOC-approved mental-health evaluation and compliance with recommendations, which "may include ingestion of medications as prescribed by a licensed practitioner."
- The condition also prohibited non-prescribed drug use and allowed a court review hearing only after the probationer had taken prescribed medication, experienced side effects, and unsuccessfully tried to resolve them with a physician.
- Kozevnikoff objected that compelled medication unduly restricts liberty; the State argued the condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection.
Issues
| Issue | Kozevnikoff's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probation condition allowing compelled ingestion of psychotropic medication (with only a post-administration review procedure) is lawful | The condition unduly restricts liberty and privacy; an independent, pre-administration judicial hearing and consideration of less intrusive alternatives are required | The condition is reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety and is not unduly restrictive; post-administration review is adequate | Court vacated the condition and remanded; an independent, timely, medically informed hearing (or a provision for such a hearing before forced medication, e.g., at or near release) is required consistent with constitutional limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute, 138 P.3d 238 (Alaska 2006) (psychotropic medication implicates a fundamental liberty interest; forced medication requires judicial finding of best interest and lack of less intrusive alternatives)
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (due process protections for forcible medication in confinement settings)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (limits on forced medication to render a defendant competent for trial; requires careful procedural safeguards)
- United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2004) (probation condition permitting forced medication invalid where no pre-administration, medically informed, independent judicial review is provided)
- Roman v. State, 570 P.2d 1235 (Alaska 1977) (probation conditions must be reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection and not unduly restrictive)
- Peratrovich v. State, 903 P.2d 1071 (Alaska App. 1995) (trial court must consider and justify rejection of less restrictive alternatives before imposing conditions that restrict constitutional rights)