295 P.3d 931
Alaska Ct. App.2013Background
- Lengele was indicted for criminal nonsupport; the dispute centers on a jury instruction about 'without lawful excuse' and self-induced poverty.
- Custody order: joint legal custody, physical custody 70% (husband) and 30% (Lengele); child support set at $906.33/month, arrears retroactive to separation.
- Lengele claimed inability to pay due to lack of driver's license, medical issues, caring for a disabled mother, and difficulty obtaining work or a modification.
- CSSD garnished some wages; Lengele had periods of employment but made minimal or untended payments, with growing arrears (over $112,000 by 2009).
- Trial court instructed jury using a two-paragraph State proposal on 'without lawful excuse' plus a third paragraph; the judge kept second paragraph, removed the third.
- Lengele argued the language improperly excluded reasonably motivated voluntary termination; the jury ultimately convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error | Objection insufficiently specific. | Objection preserved the core error claim. | Not preserved; general objection inadequate. |
| Accuracy of the instruction under Alaska law | Language excluded reasonable voluntary termination scenarios. | Instruction aligned with Alaska law and Taylor. | Incomplete/misleading but not plain error. |
| Plain error standard | Error affected rights and was obvious prejudice. | No plain error given context and evidence. | No plain error. |
| Effect on jury outcome | Language could mislead about self-induced poverty. | Other instructions and closing negated prejudice. | Not prejudicial; substantial evidence supported verdict. |
| Consistency with case law | Instruction misstates Johansen/Taylor interpretations. | Instruction consistent with statutory framework and caselaw. | Instruction not plain error; consistent overall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johansen v. State, 491 P.2d 759 (Alaska 1971) (juror assesses reasonable efforts and self-exemption in nonpayment.)
- Taylor v. State, 710 P.2d 1019 (Alaska App. 1985) (defines without lawful excuse via reasonable efforts to obtain funds.)
- Hout v. NANA Commercial Catering, 638 P.2d 186 (Alaska 1981) (preservation of error requires specific objection grounds.)
- Jaso v. McCarthy, 923 P.2d 795 (Alaska 1996) (support for interpretation of adequate objections and standards.)
- State v. Dupere, 709 P.2d 493 (Alaska 1985) (analysis of trial errors in Alaska criminal procedure.)
- Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (recognizes standards for error preservation and plain error review.)