Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10531.
June 15, 2011.
Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Petersburg, Trevor Stephens, Judge, Trial Court No. 1PE-09-01 Cr.
David Reineke, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Angie Kemp, Assistant District Attorney, Juneau, and Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Fredrick W. Damer III appeals his conviction for third-degree assault. At his trial, Damer claimed that he acted in self-defense. The jury rejected that defense, finding that the State had rebutted Damer's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this appeal, Damer asserts that the evidence presented at his trial is not legally sufficient to support the jury's decision regarding self-defense. In other words, Damer argues that no reasonable finder of fact could have concluded that the State had disproved Damer's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
See AS 11.81.300 and AS 11.81.330(a) (declaring, in combination, that the claim that a defendant used non-deadly force in self-defense is a "defense") and AS 11.81.900(b)(19) (declaring that when the trial evidence is sufficient to support a defense, it is the government's burden to disprove the asserted defense beyond a reasonable doubt).
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, this Court is obliged to view the evidence (and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from that evidence) in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict. Here is the evidence presented at Damer's trial, viewed in that light:
Rantala v. State, 216 P.3d 550, 562 (Alaska App. 2009).
Damer and his girlfriend, L.G., shared a residence in Petersburg. According to L.G., Damer would often get jealous and upset over how much time she spent with her friends. When L.G. finished work on December 31, 2008, she went out with friends to celebrate New Year's Eve. L.G. and her friends went to a bar and stayed there until approximately 2:00 a.m. on New Year's Day. L.G. then went to a friend's house, where she stayed until approximately 4:00 a.m. . At that point, she went home.
When L.G. arrived home, Damer was sitting on the couch in the living room. As L.G. was taking off her coat, Damer jumped up and pushed L.G. down onto the couch. L.G. attempted to call the police on her mobile phone, but Damer grabbed the phone and threw it down, breaking it into pieces.
Damer used his body weight to hold L.G. down. He told her that she was a "bitch" for "not coming home" and for "running around with [her] friends". Damer put his knee and one hand on L.G.'s throat, choking her. He told her, "You bitch, you're going . . . to die." L.G. was unable to breathe or swallow, and she feared that Damer was actually going to kill her. When L.G. struggled against him, Damer eventually removed his hand from her throat, but then he started punching her and pulling her hair.
At some point, Damer released L.G., and she ran to the bathroom. Damer followed L.G. into the bathroom, and he again started hitting her in the face and head, and pulling her hair. According to L.G., Damer also picked up a pair of scissors and held them up to L.G.'s eyes. He again called her a "bitch", and he told her that he was going to kill her — that if he couldn't have her, "no one else can". Damer's assault on L.G. was interrupted when he began to throw up. While Damer was vomiting, L.G. was able to escape.
L.G. immediately went to the police station and reported the assault. The police photographed L.G.'s injuries, which included significant bruising on her face and a clump of hair that had been pulled out.
Two officers went to Damer's residence to investigate. When they arrived, all the lights were turned off. The officers found Damer in bed, pretending to be asleep, but fully clothed in jeans, a shirt, and socks. When the police questioned Damer, he asserted that he had not seen L.G., and that she had not been at the residence for weeks. Damer also told the officers that he had not been drinking alcohol at all that day, even though the officers could smell alcohol on his breath. Damer had a scratch on one of his hands, and there were dried smears of blood on both of his hands. Half of L.G.'s mobile phone was discovered at the bottom of the kitchen garbage can.
When the police arrested Damer and took him to the police station, they administered a breath test. This test showed that Damer had a blood alcohol level of .083 percent. The police found L.G.'s keys in Damer's pocket.
At trial, Damer testified to a substantially different version of the events: he asserted that L.G. had assaulted him, and that he acted in self-defense. According to Damer, after L.G. came home on New Year's Day, she started complaining about the mess that Damer had made in the kitchen. L.G. then went to the bathroom and emerged with a pair of scissors. She then used these scissors to attack Damer. Damer testified that he grabbed L.G. by her arm and shirt, trying to stop her attack. As they were struggling for control of the scissors, they tripped over the coffee table and fell to the floor. L.G. then left the residence.
Damer declared that he never choked L.G., he never put the scissors to her face, he never put his knee to her throat, and he never punched her. He said that he received the scratch on his hand when he grabbed the scissors out of L.G.'s hand.
On appeal, Damer points to various weaknesses and inconsistencies in the government's evidence, and he argues that, given these weaknesses and inconsistencies, no reasonable jury could have concluded that the State had successfully refuted his claim of self-defense. But this argument hinges on viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Damer. As we explained earlier, the law requires us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict. When we view the evidence in that light, it is sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Damer did not act in self-defense when he used force against his girlfriend.
Accordingly, the judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED.