State v. Jouppi
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 72
Alaska Ct. App.2017Background
- Kenneth Jouppi (pilot/owner-operator) and his company Ken Air, LLC were tried and convicted for knowingly transporting alcoholic beverages toward a "local option" (dry) community in violation of AS 04.11.499(a).
- Troopers observed Jouppi load boxes and semi-transparent grocery bags containing beer into his airplane at Fairbanks airport; the plane was stopped before takeoff and beer was seized. Passenger Helen Nicholia pleaded guilty; she owned the boxes/bags and was returned her non-alcoholic groceries after officers removed the beer.
- At trial defendants requested a "Thorne" (spoliation) jury instruction because the officers returned the boxes/bags rather than preserving them; the judge denied the instruction.
- Trooper Sgt. Yancey testified he would not opine on legal "willful blindness" but said Jouppi "would have to be blind" not to see the beer; defendants objected that this invaded mens rea.
- Ken Air challenged sufficiency of the evidence that Jouppi was acting as its agent during the flight; the jury convicted Ken Air. At sentencing the court initially ordered forfeiture of the airplane, then reversed and declined forfeiture; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jouppi/Ken Air) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were entitled to a Thorne spoliation instruction for officers returning boxes/bags | Police had a duty only to preserve items they actually seized; returning owner’s property and photographing items was proper; no spoliation | Troopers should have seized/preserved bags and boxes; their return destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence and jurors should be instructed to infer evidence would favor defense | Denied. No duty to preserve items not seized; no proof bags were atypical or that full box contents could be reassembled to prove invisibility of alcohol. |
| Whether Sgt. Yancey’s testimony impermissibly asserted Jouppi’s mens rea (willful blindness) | His testimony was observational and a permissible lay opinion about what an observer would see, helpful under Evid. R. 701 | Testimony improperly invaded jury determination of mental state and offered legal conclusion | Admissible. Trooper limited to perception-based inference, not a legal opinion on willful blindness. |
| Whether evidence legally sufficient to convict Ken Air (agency/scope) | Jouppi acted as owner-operator and agent when he accepted/loaded charter and collected fares; jurors could infer his actions were within scope of employment | Jouppi was not acting as Ken Air pilot that day; insufficient proof of agency/scope | Sufficient. Testimony about charter practice, revenues, and that Jouppi was owner-operator supported rational inference of agency and scope. |
| Whether the airplane must be forfeited and whether State may seek appellate relief | Forfeiture statute AS 04.16.220(a)(3)(C) and (i)(1) mandates forfeiture of aircraft used to transport or facilitate transportation of alcoholic beverages "imported into" local option communities; "imported" should be read to refer to the statutory offense in AS 04.11.499 (includes attempts/transport/sending) so interception before arrival does not avoid forfeiture; even if appealability uncertain, court will reach merits | "Imported into" means physically delivered into the local option community; where interception occurs before arrival, forfeiture is unauthorized; double jeopardy bars increasing sentences after sentencing | Reversed district court on forfeiture. Forfeiture mandatory under the statutes because they target all conduct encompassed by AS 04.11.499 (including attempts/transport), so aircraft used to facilitate such conduct must be forfeited; appellate review granted on public-importance grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorne v. Department of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326 (Alaska 1989) (remedy for police spoliation can include jury instruction assuming missing evidence would be favorable to defense)
- Selig v. State, 286 P.3d 767 (Alaska App. 2012) (police duty is to preserve evidence they have collected; not generally required to collect all potentially relevant items)
- Augustine v. State, 355 P.3d 573 (Alaska App. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Forster v. State, 236 P.3d 1157 (Alaska App. 2010) (discussion of State's appellate rights and parallels to federal statute authorizing appeals)
- Grant v. State, 379 P.3d 993 (Alaska App. 2016) (double jeopardy does not bar correction of an illegally lenient sentence)