440 P.3d 391
Alaska Ct. App.2019Background
- Wendy Williams was convicted of two counts of violating protective orders forbidding contact with the Lansdale family; one conviction arose from events at an August 2013 football jamboree and the other from a November 2013 parking‑lot incident.
- The March 2013 protective order barred approaching, watching, confronting, stalking Kathleen Lansdale, and directly/indirectly communicating with Lansdale family members except as consistent with visitation rights.
- At the jamboree the State presented evidence that Williams photographed Kathleen/Robert/Israel and (based on one witness’s passing reference) also beckoned to Israel; only the photographing was testified to by both witnesses in detail.
- The trial court instructed the jury that Williams could be found guilty if the jury unanimously found either (a) the photographing conduct or (b) the communication/beckoning conduct, and that jurors need not agree on which theory supported guilt; defense counsel objected only to phrasing, not to the substance, and did not later object to the prosecutor’s summation arguing non‑unanimity was acceptable.
- The State introduced evidence of four prior incidents (three contested on appeal) in which Williams violated earlier court orders restricting contact with the Lansdales; the court excluded most proffered prior acts but admitted a limited number after weighing relevance and prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it rejected Williams’s unanimity/plain‑error claim (finding invited error and no plain error) and upheld admission of prior‑acts evidence as relevant to targeted animus and not unduly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury unanimity re: jamboree conduct | Jury must be unanimous as to which discrete act (photographing vs. beckoning) supported conviction | Instruction was proper because multiple theories can describe a single crime; defense invited the instruction | Affirmed — defense invited instruction; even if plain‑error review applied, no reversible error given trial strategy and unclear unit of prosecution |
| Admissibility of prior violations | Prior incidents were propensity evidence barred by Evid. R. 404(b) | Prior incidents showed targeted animus toward the Lansdales and were relevant; court limited number under Evid. R. 403 | Affirmed — evidence had case‑specific relevance (animus), court did not abuse discretion in limiting admissions |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlosser v. State, 372 P.3d 272 (Alaska App. 2016) (invited‑error doctrine where defense urged particular wording)
- Taylor v. State, 400 P.3d 130 (Alaska App. 2017) (discusses factual‑unanimity and unit‑of‑prosecution analysis)
- James v. State, 698 P.2d 1161 (Alaska 1985) (no unanimity required where statute defines crime disjunctively by culpable mental states)
- Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897 (Alaska 1970) (multiple theories for one crime do not require juror agreement on a single theory)
- Baker v. State, 22 P.3d 493 (Alaska App. 2001) (no unanimity required regarding alternative theories across a series of communications)