Silook v. State
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 71
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- K.S., a three-year-old, suffered severe head injuries and retinal hemorrhages in 2009; medical evidence suggested head trauma and a broken collar bone.
- Silook lived with boyfriend Michael Ponte, who was charged as the assailant; the child later told investigators Ponte had choked and submerged her during a bath.
- When police interviewed Silook shortly after hospitalization, she falsely said she (not Ponte) had cared for the child that evening and suggested accidental causes (sledding, hitting rocks).
- A grand jury indicted Silook for first-degree hindering prosecution (for lying to police) and second-degree assault (for failure to protect); she was acquitted of assault but convicted of hindering prosecution.
- The State argued Silook’s false statements "rendered assistance" to Ponte under AS 11.56.770(b)(3) (providing means of avoiding discovery) and (b)(4) (deception preventing investigative acts).
- The Court of Appeals concluded the State misinterpreted both subsections and reversed the hindering prosecution conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lying to police constituted "renders assistance" under AS 11.56.770(b)(3) (providing money, transportation, disguise, or "other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension"). | Silook’s false statements were "other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension," so (b)(3) covers verbal deception. | (b)(3) targets tangible/material assistance (money, transport, weapon, disguise); verbal lies are not "providing" such means. | (b)(3) is limited to tangible/material aid; lies do not satisfy this clause. |
| Whether lying to police constituted "renders assistance" under AS 11.56.770(b)(4) ("prevents or obstructs, by means of deception, anyone from performing an act which might aid in discovery or apprehension"). | Silook’s deception obstructed the investigation and thus prevented acts that would have aided in Ponte’s discovery or apprehension. | (b)(4) does not criminalize police-initiated interviews where the defendant gives false or misleading answers absent proof the deception actually prevented/obstructed an investigative act or hid the suspect’s physical whereabouts. | The State failed under either sensible construction: it did not prove Silook’s lies prevented or altered investigative acts, nor that (b)(4) reaches mere suppression of evidence linking a known person to a crime; conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Budik, 272 P.3d 816 (Wash. 2012) (statute requires proof the deception prevented or obstructed an act the police would have performed)
- State v. McMasters, 815 S.W.2d 116 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (lying alone is insufficient; must show police conduct was prevented or altered)
- State v. Werdell, 136 P.3d 17 (Or. 2006) ("discovery of the person" construed to mean locating the suspect, not merely proving a known person’s guilt)
- Sapp v. State, 379 P.3d 1000 (Alaska App. 2016) (ejusdem generis supports reading subsection examples as tangible/material assistance)