State v. Dussault
245 P.3d 436
Alaska Ct. App.2011Background
- Brian Dussault, convicted not guilty by reason of insanity for murder, was committed to API under DHSS custody in 1984.
- Judge Suddock conducted annual status hearings on Dussault's conditional release since 2003 and held a Feb. 1, 2008 evidentiary hearing showing tentative willingness to release with conditions.
- After repeated status hearings failed to produce a viable release plan, Suddock discussed with various agencies who might monitor Dussault, including DOC, DHSS, and an inter-agency arrangement.
- In November 2008, Suddock contacted DHSS Commissioner Hogan ex parte to seek designation of a DHSS monitor and to explore DOC involvement; four related emails followed.
- The State moved to disqualify Suddock for appearance of impropriety; Judge Spaan denied the motion, but on review the Alaska Court of Appeals held disqualification was required.
- The court reversed, finding that Suddock’s ex parte communications created an appearance of partiality and were not authorized by law or by administrative exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ex parte communications were authorized by law | Dussault | Dussiault argued the statute authorized private communications | Not authorized by law |
| Whether ex parte communications were permissible for administrative purposes | State | Ex parte talks allowed to schedule/administrative purposes | Not permissible; they addressed substantive planning and exceeded administrative scope |
| Whether ex parte communications created an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification | State | No appearance of impropriety | Yes; disqualification required |
| Whether the prior disqualification rulings were properly applied | State | Deference to trial court's discretion | Abused discretion; disqualification proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Amidon v. State, 604 P.2d 575 (Alaska 1979) (guides appearance-of-impropriety standard)
- Pride v. Harris, 882 P.2d 381 (Alaska 1994) (incorporates impartiality standard from Canon 3C(1)(a))
- In re Robson, 500 P.2d 657 (Alaska 1972) (appearance of partiality from advocacy-like action)
- In re Cummings, 211 P.3d 1136 (Alaska 2009) (appearance concerns in evidentiary/advocacy context)
- Cook v. State, 36 P.3d 710 (Alaska App. 2001) (ex parte communications context for authorized petitions)