As most people know, a criminal defendant has a right to a fair trial. This means the right to be adequately prepared to defend himself against the State's charges.
What happens when the government charges the defendant with new crimes less than a week before his scheduled trial? One would think this would provide a very good basis to appeal his criminal conviction, but not necessarily, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled this past week in Aketachunak v. State.
The Facts
Jimmy Aketachunak assaulted his on-again, off-again girlfriend (Prince) at her home in Kotlik. At the time, Aketachunak was on probation for a prior assault conviction against Prince. As a condition of his probation, he could not contact Prince unless she requested contact, and his probation officer approved the contact.
The State charged Aketachunak with felony assault, and a grand jury later indicted him on this charge. (Under Alaska law, a grand jury must indict a criminal defendant on a felony charge after the State files an information, unless the defendant waives indictment).
Trial was scheduled for Monday, July 23, 2019, in Bethel Superior Court. But the Friday before trial, the State filed a new information charging Aketachunak with misdemeanor unlawful contact—based on his having contact with Prince the night of the assault. (Unlike felony charges, misdemeanor charges in Alaska do not require grand jury indictment).
Despite the new charge, Aketachunak's attorney said his client still wanted to go to trial on Monday. On the day of trial, however, Aketachunak now objected to the new charge, claiming the need to investigate a possible new defense. But when the trial court offered Aketachunak a continuance, he refused.
A jury found him guilty of felony assault and misdemeanor unlawful contact. He appealed the unlawful contact conviction only.
Court of Appeals upholds the jury's verdict
On appeal, Aketachunak argued that the State violated Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e) by adding a new charge before trial. Under this rule, an Alaska court will not allow the State to amend the information or indictment to add any additional or different charges if the court finds that the new charged would affect the defendant's rights to a fair trial.
But that's not what happened here, the Court of Appeals ruled. The State did not amend an “existing indictment or information.” Rather, the State filed a new charge, so Rule 7(e) did not apply. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals considered the history of the Rule and other states' interpretation of equivalent state rules.
Aketachunak also argued on appeal that he was prejudiced by the new charge, but the Court of Appeals rejected this argument also. As the Court noted, the trial court offered him the opportunity to request a continuance, and he declined. Whatever prejudice may have resulted, Aketachunak knowingly and voluntarily waived it.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment