244 P.3d 1151
Alaska Ct. App.2011Background
- Lindeman was convicted of second-degree murder and sought post-conviction relief in Alaska.
- The court addressed whether Lindeman received ineffective appellate assistance and whether new or additional DNA testing could affect the outcome.
- Trial DNA testing occurred; defense sought broader DNA analysis but delays were found to be tactical by the court.
- A supplemental jury instruction during deliberations raised issues about whether Lindeman could be convicted on a theory not in the indictment.
- Lindeman challenged juror misconduct, neuropathology arguments, and sentencing-related claims, but the superior court denied relief on these grounds.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of most claims but reopened the appeal for an ineffective-assistance challenge to appellate counsel regarding the supplemental jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s handling of DNA testing was ineffective | Lindeman | State | No; decisions deemed tactical; not ineffective under standards. |
| Whether new DNA results require a new trial under new evidence rules | Lindeman | State | Not; evidence not newly discovered. |
| Whether Lindeman is entitled to additional DNA testing under Osborne I</br>(three-part test) | Lindeman | State | No; Osborne I test not satisfied. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the supplemental jury instruction | Lindeman | State | Yes; there was a reasonable possibility of success on appeal. |
| Whether juror misconduct warrants a new trial | Lindeman | State | No; no sufficient prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborne v. State (Osborne II), 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska App. 2007) (affects whether broader DNA testing is warranted when evidence is trialed and relies on tactical considerations)
- Osborne v. State (Osborne I), 110 P.3d 986 (Alaska App. 2005) (three-part test for ordering additional DNA testing; eyewitness identification focus)
- Michael v. State (Michael II), 805 P.2d 371 (Alaska 1991) (constructive amendment and trial-logic concerns on lesser-included offenses)
- Michael v. State (Michael I), 767 P.2d 193 (Alaska App. 1988) (initial rejection of in-action duty theories as basis for conviction)
- Jones v. State, 759 P.2d 558 (Alaska App. 1988) (presumption of competence in counsel unless no tactical justification)
- Steffensen v. State, 902 P.2d 340 (Alaska App. 1995) (counselineffective showing requires no valid tactical reason for conduct)
- Swain v. State, 817 P.2d 927 (Alaska App. 1991) (juror misconduct prejudice framework)