Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-8782.
December 14, 2005.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Second Judicial District, Barrow, Michael I. Jeffery, Judge, Trial Court No. 2BA-02-00668 CR.
Sharon Barr, Assistant Public Defender, and Barbara K. Brink, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Appellant.
John A. Scukanec, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and David W. Márquez, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Following a jury trial, James P. Ipalook was convicted of assault in the second degree, a class B felony. The jury convicted Ipalook on the theory that he caused physical injury to Ruth Long by means of a dangerous instrument, a knife. On appeal, Ipalook argues that insufficient evidence exists to support the jury's verdict. Ipalook argues that, because of his highly intoxicated state, there was insufficient evidence to show that he acted with the intent to cause physical injury to Ruth Long. He also argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that he caused the injury with a knife or other dangerous instrument. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
AS 11.41.210(a)(1).
Factual and procedural background
On the night of November 30, 2002, James P. Ipalook, Eileen Simmonds and Ipalook's niece, Ruth Long, went out drinking and dancing. Ipalook and the two women returned home in the early morning hours of December 1, 2002 and continued to drink. They all became highly intoxicated.
Simmonds testified that she and Ipalook argued. Long tried to calm things down. Ipalook became angry and began chasing Simmonds around an island in the kitchen. He caught her, pulled her down by her hair, climbed on top of her, and "stuck his thumbs in [her] eyes." While this transpired, Ronald Simmonds, Eileen Simmonds's brother, called the police to report that Ipalook was assaulting his sister. Ronald Simmonds testified that he did not see the assaultive conduct and only called the police after he heard "a bunch of running around" downstairs and heard Ipalook say, "I'm going to kill you."
Sergeant Chris Dunbar and Officer Neil Paskewitz of the North Slope Borough Police Department responded to the 911 call. When he arrived, Dunbar saw Long coming down the outside porch steps. She had what appeared to be a large blood stain on her chest or upper abdomen. Dunbar testified that as he approached Long she collapsed to the ground. At this point Dunbar told Paskewitz to enter the residence while he administered first-aid to Long. Dunbar testified that Long was bleeding heavily and was in considerable pain. Dunbar assumed that Long had been stabbed, but he could not determine the source of the blood at that time. Long appeared to be distraught and fearful. She stated "my uncle stabbed me." According to Sergeant Dunbar's testimony, he then asked Long to tell him who had stabbed her and she replied, "James Ipalook stabbed me." Because of the area of the wound, and Long's lack of response, Dunbar stated he believed that Long might go into shock and possibly die. During Dunbar's time with Long (approximately 10 minutes), the blood spot on her shirt expanded to a 12- to 14-inch diameter. Dunbar applied direct pressure to the wound to try to control the bleeding. An ambulance arrived and took Long to the emergency room. Dunbar testified that the wound was 1.5 centimeters by 3 centimeters in size, however no evidence of the depth of the wound existed.
Officer Paskewitz testified that when he entered the home he found Ipalook lying on the floor in the kitchen, without a shirt or shoes, as if he was asleep. Ipalook had blood on one arm and hand, and lay near various utensils, including knives and a can opener. Paskewitz mistakenly told Ipalook that Eileen Simmonds (as opposed to Ruth Long) had been stabbed. Upon further examination of the kitchen area, officers noted that two drawers had been pulled out and numerous knives and other utensils were scattered about the floor, sink, and countertops. Two knives found in the sink were wet but had no blood on them. A small punch-type can opener was discovered with some blood on the handle and droplets of blood on the floor.
While Sergeant Dunbar took Ipalook from the house, he broke away from Sergeant Dunbar and fled. The officers chased Ipalook and caught him a short time later. When the police caught Ipalook, he verbally abused and fought the officers while they put him in the patrol car. Later, after Long had been taken to the hospital, Ipalook asked Sergeant Dunbar "[I]s she dead?"
Long did not testify at trial. The jury, however, did hear the tape recording of the statement that she made to Sergeant Dunbar in which she identified her uncle, James Ipalook, as the person who stabbed her with a knife.
The State did not present any medical testimony about Long's injuries or treatment. The State argued that Ipalook had stabbed Long with one of the knives that the police found in the kitchen. However, the State was unable to match the wound with any particular knife or object.
Ipalook did not testify at trial. But he defended on the ground that he had been in an alcoholic blackout at the time of the incident and, therefore, had not acted intentionally when he injured Long. He called a psychiatrist, Dr. Aaron Wolf, in support of his claim. Ipalook also argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that he had caused Long's injuries by means of a knife or other dangerous instrument. But the jury convicted Ipalook of assault in the second degree. The jury also convicted Ipalook of assault in the third degree for his assault on Eileen Simmonds, escape in the second degree, and resisting arrest for breaking away from the police and resisting them when they apprehended him. But Ipalook only appeals his conviction for assault in the second degree.
AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(B) (a class C felony).
AS 11.56.310(a)(1)(B) (a class B felony).
AS 11.56.700(a)(1) (a class A misdemeanor).
Why we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Ipalook of assault in the second degree
In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction, this Court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [S]tate and inquire whether reasonable jurors could conclude that the accused's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt."
Simpson v. State, 877 P.2d 1319, 1320 (Alaska App. 1994) (citations omitted).
Ipalook's major contention is that the State did not present sufficient evidence for the jury to find that he used a dangerous instrument to cause Long's injury. He points out that the State did not present any evidence, other than the witnesses' observations at the scene, about the nature of Long's injuries. Long never testified at trial and the State did not present any medical evidence about her injuries.
The Alaska Statutes define a "dangerous instrument" as "any deadly weapon or anything that, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is capable of causing death or serious physical injury[.]" The State had two ways it could meet the statutory definition. The first way would be for the State to prove that Ipalook had caused Long's injury by using a "deadly weapon." The Alaska Statutes define "deadly weapon" as "any firearm, or anything designed for and capable of causing death or serious physical injury, including a knife, an axe, a club, metal knuckles, or an explosive[.]" The State argued that Ipalook had used one of the numerous knives that were present to stab Long. A knife, by definition, constitutes a deadly weapon.
AS 11.81.900(b)(17) (emphasis added).
AS 11.41.900(b)(17).
AS 11.81.900(b)(15).
In the event that the State was unable to prove that Ipalook had caused Long's injury with a "deadly weapon," the State had to prove that however Ipalook caused the injury, he caused it with something capable of causing death or serious physical injury under the circumstances in which it was used.
We conclude that the evidence the State presented to the jury sufficiently allowed the jury to conclude that Ipalook used a knife to cause Long's injury. The evidence that we have previously set out in the case, without considering Ruth Long's taped statement, was probably sufficient for the jury to conclude that Ipalook stabbed Long with a knife. According to Sergeant Dunbar's testimony, when he asked Long to tell him who had stabbed her, she replied "James Ipalook stabbed me." But, during the trial, the State played the tape recording of Sergeant Dunbar's contact with Long at the scene. We have listened to that tape. On the tape, Long actually said "James . . . Ipalook, he stabbed me with a knife." Combined with the other testimony, Long's statement sets out sufficient evidence that Ipalook stabbed her with a knife. Therefore the evidence sufficiently supports the jury's verdict.
In Ipalook's reply brief, Ipalook's counsel acknowledges that the State played Ruth Long's taped statement to Sergeant Dunbar for the jury. But Ipalook's counsel points out that the State never argued at trial or on appeal that the tape recording of Long's statement supported its contention that Ipalook stabbed Long with a knife. However, the fact that the State did not rely on this statement is not determinative. In reviewing the evidence to determine whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction, we are to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. And there is no question that the tape recording of Long's statement at the scene was evidence that the State presented to the jury. Given Long's statement, in conjunction with the other evidence that the State presented, the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ipalook stabbed Long with a knife.
Ipalook also contends that the evidence that the State presented at trial was insufficient to allow the jury to find that he acted intentionally. Ipalook points out that the evidence the State presented at trial showed that he was highly intoxicated. Furthermore, Ipalook presented testimony from Aaron Wolf, a psychiatrist, that Ipalook was in an alcoholic blackout and was unable to form the intent to injure Long. But the jury was free to rely on the other evidence that the State presented at trial and determine that Ipalook intended to cause physical injury to Long. The State presented evidence from both Eileen Simmonds and Ronald Simmonds that Ipalook had engaged in a heated argument with Eileen Simmonds. Long had attempted to break up the argument. Ipalook threatened to kill Eileen Simmonds and chased her around the kitchen. He then caught her by grabbing her by the hair, pulling her down, and assaulted her by sticking his thumbs in her eyes. The evidence then shows that Ipalook assaulted Long by stabbing her with a knife in the chest or abdomen. Later, after Long had been taken to the hospital, Ipalook asked Sergeant Dunbar, "[I]s she dead?" This evidence could support a conclusion by the jury that Ipalook was aware of his actions and acted intentionally. The jury could also conclude that Ipalook's actions in fleeing from the police and resisting arrest showed his ability to act intentionally.
Conclusion
We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Ipalook assaulted Ruth Long with the intent to cause her physical injury and that he caused her injury with a knife. This evidence sufficiently supports Ipalook's conviction for assault in the second degree. We accordingly affirm Ipalook's conviction.