286 P.3d 1065
Alaska Ct. App.2012Background
- NP, a nurse, hosted a group after bar closing; Milligan participated; NP awoke to find Milligan having sex with her; Milligan convicted of first- and second-degree sexual assault.
- Milligan argued NP had alcohol-related memory loss and sought to impeach her memory; trial judge excluded the evidence as collateral/propensity.
- There was evidence NP had been drinking for hours before the incident; Milligan proffered corroboration from Yates and Stumbaugh; court excluded it.
- Court held that alcohol-related memory loss near the incident is admissible to impeach memory/perception, reversing convictions and remanding for new trial.
- Milligan challenged indictment sufficiency and exculpatory grand jury evidence; court addressed these issues and remanded on other matters.
- Grand jury procedure involved Officer Redburn’s summaries of other officers’ statements; court found potential negligent omission and remanded for further ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of alcohol-related memory loss for impeachment | Milligan asserts admissibility to impeach NP | State contends collateral issue; NP memory lies in credibility | Admissible to impeach memory/perception |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree sexual assault | State says sufficient evidence supports charge | Milligan argues lack of coercion/consent evidence | Sufficient evidence to support first-degree charge |
| Exculpatory evidence to grand jury | State failed to present exculpatory proof | Inconsistencies do not automatically negate guilt | Inconsistencies insufficient; not exculpatory; remand on other issues |
| Potential negligent omission in grand jury testimony | Officer Redburn may have negligently omitted statements | Rule 6(r)(8) allows summaries with corroboration; omissions possible | Record unresolved; superior court to determine negligence and prejudice, possibly dismiss indictment if warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. State, 97 P.3d 73 (Alaska App. 2004) (coercion by implicit threat supports first-degree assessment)
- Ritter v. State, 97 P.3d 77 (Alaska App. 2004) (circumstances of therapy may render victims afraid to protest)
- Callahan v. State, 769 P.2d 444 (Alaska App. 1989) (collateral issue evidence rules for impeachment)
- Dyer v. State, 666 P.2d 438 (Alaska App. 1983) (evidence admissibility standards in Alaska)