Brigman v. State, 021220 AKCA, A-12727

Docket Nº:A-12727
Opinion Judge:MANNHEIMER, JUDGE.
Party Name:JEFFREY ERIC BRIGMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Attorney:Gavin Kentch, Law Office of Gavin Kentch, LLC, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, f...
Judge Panel:Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Harbison, Judge, and Mannheimer, Senior Judge.
Case Date:February 12, 2020
Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska
 
FREE EXCERPT

JEFFREY ERIC BRIGMAN, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-12727

Court of Appeals of Alaska

February 12, 2020

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District Trial Court No. 3AN-13-09635 CR, Anchorage, Paul E. Olson, Judge.

Gavin Kentch, Law Office of Gavin Kentch, LLC, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Harbison, Judge, and Mannheimer, Senior Judge. [*]

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MANNHEIMER, JUDGE.

Jeffrey Eric Brigman was convicted of felony driving under the influence based on evidence that he crashed a car in downtown Anchorage.

The driver of this car left the scene on foot immediately after the crash, and a few minutes later the police found Brigman only a short distance away. The police then conducted a "show-up" identification procedure, in which Brigman was displayed to a man who had witnessed the crash. This witness identified Brigman as the driver.

After Brigman was indicted, his attorney asked the superior court to suppress the results of this show-up identification, arguing that the procedure was improperly suggestive, and that the resulting identification was unreliable.

The superior court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter and, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court denied Brigman's suppression motion. In making this ruling, the court relied on the legal test set forth in Anderson v. State, 123 P.3d 1110, 1116 (Alaska App. 2005), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed, 2d 140 (1977).

But after the superior court made its ruling, the Alaska Supreme Court adopted a new test for evaluating the reliability of out-of-court police identification procedures: see Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395 (Alaska 2016). The State concedes that the Young test is controlling, and that the reliability of Brigman's out-of-court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP