Opinion
A-14467
09-17-2024
Sidney R. Huntington, Appellant, v. State of Alaska, Appellee
Bail Appeal Trial Court Case No. 4DJ-18-00012CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges.
ORDER
Sidney R. Huntington is currently in custody and charged with one count of third-degree assault. He appeals the superior court's May 21, 2024 denial of his proposed third-party custodian. We affirm.
AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A).
Huntington was originally indicted on one count of first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder, and two counts of third-degree assault for the murder of Melissa Erickson and the fear assaults of Robert Fifer and O.E. Huntington filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, and the superior court dismissed the murder counts and one of the two counts of third-degree assault pursuant to our decision in State v. Powell.
AS 11.41.100(a)(1)(A), AS 11.41.110(a)(1) and (a)(2), and AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), respectively.
State v. Powell, 487 P.3d 609 (Alaska App. 2021).
The State filed a petition for review of the dismissal in this Court, which we denied. The State then filed a petition for hearing in the Alaska Supreme Court.The supreme court granted the State's petition and stayed consideration of the petition pending the court's decision on the merits of the State's petition for hearing in Powell.The decision in Powell - and thus, the petition in this case - remain pending before the supreme court.
State v. Huntington, Court of Appeals File No. A-14228 (Order dated Sept. 14, 2023).
See State v. Huntington, Supreme Court File No. S-18897 (Order dated Jan. 8, 2024).
Id.
In May 2024, Huntington proposed his mother, Sharon Huntington, as his third-party custodian. At a bail hearing, the superior court took testimony from Ms. Huntington and heard arguments by the parties. Ms. Huntington testified that, while it would hurt her to have to report her son, she would do so if he left her sight or sound or violated a condition of release. Ms. Huntington acknowledged that she had had conversations with Huntington about the case, but she was inconsistent in her testimony about how much she remembered of those conversations.
The court took the matter under advisement overnight so that it could review the court file.
The following day, the court made findings and ruled on Huntington's request. The court recognized the difficult and unusual procedural posture of the case, but it concluded that it needed to consider all of the allegations, including those currently on appellate review. The court also recognized that there were several contested issues regarding the State's theory of the case.
See AS 12.30.035 ("If the state appeals an order dismissing an indictment, information, or complaint, . . . the court shall treat the defendant in accordance with the provisions governing pretrial release under this chapter."). Huntington acknowledged that the court could consider the fact that the dismissed charges were still under review, but he argued that the court should strongly weigh the fact that his only remaining charge was a class C felony.
But the court focused its attention on whether Ms. Huntington was a suitable third-party custodian. Ultimately, based on the content of Ms. Huntington's answers and her demeanor, the court did not have confidence that Ms. Huntington would be an accurate reporter who could reliably serve as the "eyes and ears of the court." The court therefore declined to approve her as Huntington's third-party custodian.
The court found that Ms. Huntington was not statutorily disqualified from serving as a third-party custodian. See AS 12.30.021(c). Huntington had previously proposed Ms. Huntington as his third-party custodian in this case, but his request was denied because conversations between Huntington and his mother created the possibility that Ms. Huntington would be a witness in his prosecution. At the latest bail hearing, the court determined that Ms. Huntington likely would not be a witness on any contested issue and therefore that she was not statutorily disqualified.
Absent legal error, we review the superior court's denial of a third-party custodian for an abuse of discretion. As we have previously stated, "The critical question is whether the proposed third-party custodian[] [is] willing and able to fulfill the supervisory duties that will be required of them."
AS 12.30.030(a).
Francis-Fields v. State, 2020 WL 9173374, at *1 (Alaska App. Dec. 17, 2020) (unpublished bail order).
Here, the court observed Ms. Huntington's testimony and was able to assess her tone and demeanor. The court recognized Ms. Huntington's testimony that she would be willing to report her son. But based on its assessment of Ms. Huntington's testimony as a whole, the court lacked confidence about Ms. Huntington's willingness and ability to serve as an accurate reporter. The court found that Ms. Huntington "appeared to downplay her memory problems when it was beneficial and emphasize them when it wasn't." The court characterized Ms. Huntington as appearing to engage in "selective reporting" about her past conversations with Huntington and emphasized that the court needed assurance that a third-party custodian will be an accurate reporter. The court indicated that it was not concerned with Ms. Huntington's memory itself, but rather with her reporting of that memory to the court.
The court also acknowledged that Ms. Huntington had previously served as a third-party custodian for Huntington in an unrelated case.
Upon Huntington's motion for reconsideration, the court indicated that it had balanced the unusual procedural posture of the case, the statutory presumptions associated with the original allegations, and the totality of Ms. Huntington's testimony. The court noted that Ms. Huntington's tone and demeanor changed significantly when answering questions from the prosecutor or from defense counsel and that the court was concerned "that she used her memory as a tool . . . when it was beneficial to her." The court therefore denied Huntington's motion for reconsideration.
AS 12.30.011(d)(2).
We will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court's decision was "arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from an improper motive." We have listened to the recording of the bail review hearing, and the court's findings are supported by the record. Ultimately, the trial judge is in a better position than we are to assess the proposed third-party custodian. We find no abuse of discretion in the court's decision here.
Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc., 414 P.3d 646, 651 (Alaska 2018)).
We AFFIRM the trial court's May 21, 2024 bail order.
Entered at the direction of the Court.