Willock v. State
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 90
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant JonDean Willock was convicted of first-degree sexual assault after R.F. testified he lured her to his apartment, pinned her down, and digitally penetrated her despite her resisting and screaming.
- Troopers found Willock shortly after with fresh blood and scratches; Willock admitted being with R.F. but claimed no memory of what occurred inside his apartment.
- The State sought and the superior court granted pretrial permission to introduce Willock’s prior conviction for a violent sexual assault (and related burglary) under Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b)(1).
- The superior court ruled the prior act was admissible to prove plan, intent, knowledge (that the conduct was sexual and nonconsensual), and absence of mistake; the State emphasized the prior act extensively at trial.
- Willock’s defense at trial, announced in opening, was that no sexual contact occurred at all (not a consent/mistake defense), making the primary disputed issue whether any sexual contact occurred.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the prior-act evidence was admitted principally to show propensity and thus was inadmissible under Rule 404(b)(1); the conviction was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior sexual-assault conviction under Evidence Rule 404(b)(1) | Prior conviction shows plan, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake relevant to charged offense | Prior act only shows propensity; defendant’s disputed issue was whether sexual contact occurred at all, so prior act is not relevant for non-character purposes | Reversed: admission improper because probative value was solely to show propensity and not a case-specific non-character purpose |
| Validity of pretrial unconditional 404(b) ruling | Pretrial ruling appropriate; defense should have asked court to revisit after theory disclosed | Pretrial unconditional admission was error when defense later disavowed consent/mistake defenses | Reversed: court erred in issuing unconditional pretrial authorization without case-specific analysis or conditional ruling |
| Whether terms like "intent," "plan," "knowledge," "mistake" were properly applied | These terms apply broadly to infer guilt from similar past acts | These terms have narrow, technical meanings under 404(b); prosecutor used colloquial senses to justify propensity inference | Court held the prosecutor and trial judge used colloquial meanings improperly; technical, case-specific meanings required |
| Prejudice from admission of prior-act evidence | Evidence was highly probative of defendant’s conduct and mental state | Admission was unfairly prejudicial because its sole relevance was propensity to commit sexual assault | Admission was prejudicial and could have affected verdict; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Belcher v. State, 372 P.3d 279 (Alaska App. 2016) (clarifies technical meanings of intent, plan, and mistake under Rule 404(b))
- Bolden v. State, 720 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1986) (Rule 404(b) "plan" requires an overarching scheme; cannot be used to show mere propensity)
- Velez v. State, 762 P.2d 1297 (Alaska App. 1988) (prior similar acts inadmissible when probative value rests on propensity inference)
- Moor v. State, 709 P.2d 498 (Alaska App. 1985) (advance notice requirement for offering other-bad-acts evidence)