Phillips v. State
271 P.3d 457
Alaska Ct. App.2012Background
- Phillips was convicted of first‑degree sexual assault and first‑ and second‑degree physical assaults in Alaska.
- Police seized Phillips's boots at Cordova Police Station after arresting him for sexual assault.
- Evidence from the boots later tested positive for blood/tissue matching the victim, K.M., though not Phillips.
- Phillips moved to suppress the boot‑evidence, arguing the boots were seized during an improper inventory search rather than incident to arrest.
- Judge Aarseth denied suppression and later denied Phillips's recusal motion after discovering a connection between the victim’s sister and the judge’s neighborhood.
- Phillips appealed, challenging both the boot suppression ruling and the judge’s refusal to recuse, and arguing a potential appearance of bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the boots seized during a proper search incident to arrest? | Phillips | Phillips | Boots seizure upheld as valid incident to arrest |
| Should Judge Aarseth have recused based on connection to the victim's sister? | Phillips | Phillips | No appearance of bias; recusal not required |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for appearance of bias in recusal decisions? | Phillips | Phillips | De novo review for appearance of bias; independent appellate review |
| Does the duty to sit outweigh recusal when appearance of bias is argued? | Phillips | Phillips | Duty to sit did not require recusal; absence of good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Amidon v. State, 604 P.2d 575 (Alaska 1979) (recusal decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; appearance may rebut subjective fairness)
- Feichtinger v. State, 779 P.2d 344 (Alaska App. 1989) (appearance of bias cannot independently disqualify a judge under AS 22.20.020)
- Perotti v. State, 806 P.2d 325 (Alaska App. 1991) (appearance of bias used to decide de novo when no lower ruling on appearance exists)
- Wasserman v. Bartholomew, 923 P.2d 806 (Alaska 1996) (appearance of bias influences disqualification; tension with Feichtinger noted)
- Nelson v. Jones, 781 P.2d 964 (Alaska 1989) (social connections in small communities questioned for bias; actual bias emphasized)
- Keller v. State, 84 P.3d 1010 (Alaska App. 2004) (recognizes social connections in small communities; not always disqualifying)