Christian v. State, No. A–10561.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Alaska |
| Writing for the Court | MANNHEIMER |
| Citation | 276 P.3d 479 |
| Docket Number | No. A–10561. |
| Decision Date | 27 April 2012 |
| Parties | Ronald K. CHRISTIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. |
276 P.3d 479
Ronald K. CHRISTIAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Alaska, Appellee.
No. A–10561.
Court of Appeals of Alaska.
April 27, 2012.
[276 P.3d 481]
Dan S. Bair, Assistant Public Advocate, Appeals and Statewide Defense Section, and Rachel Levitt (opening brief) and Richard Allen (reply brief), Public Advocates, Anchorage, and Ronald K. Christian, in propria persona, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Appellant.
Diane L. Wendlandt, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and John J. Burns, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: COATS, Chief Judge, and MANNHEIMER and BOLGER, Judges.
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
Ronald K. Christian appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, as well as the 106–year composite sentence that he received for this murder, for two accompanying acts of evidence tampering, and for various acts of theft that Christian committed by using the murder victim's debit and credit cards.
Through counsel, Christian argues (1) that his pre-sentence report should have been amended by striking the analysis of the offense offered by the State's medical examiner, Dr. Franc Fallico, and (2) that the trial judge should have allowed Christian to personally deliver the defense opening statement. The State concedes error on the first issue—the question of the pre-sentence report. With regard to the second issue, we conclude that the trial judge acted reasonably when he refused to allow Christian to deliver the opening statement.
Christian raises other issues in propria persona. He argues that the trial judge committed error by allowing the State to introduce evidence tending to show that
[276 P.3d 482]
Christian and another man, Charles Greenlee, attempted to commit a robbery that was not directly related to the homicide in this case. He also argues that the trial judge violated his right of confrontation by allowing the State to introduce evidence of various out-of-court statements made by Greenlee, when Greenlee did not testify at Christian's trial. Finally, Christian argues that his sentence is excessive, to the extent that his sentences for evidence tampering and theft (a total of 7 years, 2 months' imprisonment) were imposed consecutively to his 99–year murder sentence. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the challenged evidence was properly admitted, and that Christian's composite sentence is not clearly mistaken.
Overview of the State's case against ChristianOn January 28, 2006, Christian met up with Christopher Lindstrom and offered to assist Lindstrom in obtaining some crack cocaine; the two men went off in search of crack cocaine in Lindstrom's truck. Christian arranged a cocaine purchase for Lindstrom, but during the course of this transaction Christian decided to kill Lindstrom. Christian also stole Lindstrom's wallet, which contained credit and debit cards.
Later, Christian met up with a friend of his, Charles Greenlee, and the two of them used Lindstrom's credit and debit cards to make numerous purchases.
Two days later, on January 30, 2006, Christian was arrested near the scene of an attempted robbery of a credit union. Greenlee was later apprehended for this same attempted robbery, after his car was connected to the crime.
Federal agents impounded Greenlee's car, and they interviewed Greenlee. During this interview, Greenlee passed a note to the agents. This note read: “I know of a murder that Ron [Christian] did[,] and I know where the vehicle is and the body.”
The Anchorage police were already investigating Lindstrom's disappearance, and they considered Christian a person of interest in their investigation, so they contacted the FBI after Christian was arrested for the attempted bank robbery. Because of this contact, the federal agents informed the Anchorage police about Greenlee's note. The police obtained a warrant to search Greenlee's car. During this search, the police discovered Lindstrom's wallet and a piece of paper containing the PIN numbers for Lindstrom's bank accounts. They also found a pair of gloves that had Lindstrom's blood on the outside and someone else's DNA on the inside. (According to the testimony, Christian could not be excluded as a source of this DNA, but Lindstrom was definitely excluded as the source of the DNA.)
Greenlee subsequently took the police to Lindstrom's body, which had been shoved into the pit of an outhouse in a secluded area near Butte, and he told the police that Lindstrom's truck had been left in Girdwood.
A subsequent autopsy revealed that Lindstrom had been severely beaten, suffering multiple blows from at least two different weapons, and that Lindstrom had been shot in the head twice.
Other witnesses saw Christian in possession of Lindstrom's truck. One of them overheard Christian speaking on the phone about the need to “get rid of a gun and dump the truck”. Another witness helped Christian gather approximately $2000 in cash from inside the truck. While doing this, the witness observed a puddle of blood in the truck. Christian told this witness that he had beaten someone, and that he had shot this person in the head.
In addition to the foregoing evidence, the State also had recordings of telephone calls that Christian made to Greenlee following Christian's arrest for the attempted bank robbery. In these conversations, Greenlee informed Christian that the authorities had seized his (Greenlee's) car, and that the police had a search warrant for the car. Christian perceived that this was a problem, because he had put Lindstrom's wallet in Greenlee's car. Christian apologized to Greenlee for leaving the wallet and other incriminating articles in Greenlee's car. With regard to Lindstrom's wallet, Christian at one point suggested that Greenlee could say that it belonged to a hitchhiker, and that the hitchhiker had inadvertently left it in the car. Ultimately, Christian told Greenlee to
[276 P.3d 483]
deny any knowledge of these articles—to simply tell the police that Christian had left “a bunch of stuff” in his car. Christian assured Greenlee that he would handle it from there.
During these recorded conversations, Christian expressed confusion as to how the police could have found Lindstrom's body, and he remarked that his hands were healing—apparently, healing from the injuries he sustained while he was beating Lindstrom.
The issue concerning the content of the pre-sentence reportAt Christian's sentencing, the State contended that Christian's offense was aggravated because he had essentially tortured Lindstrom before he finally killed him. To support this assertion of torture, the State relied in large part upon the autopsy report and the grand jury testimony of Dr. Franc Fallico, who was the State Medical Examiner at the time of the homicide.
Dr. Fallico's autopsy report stated that Lindstrom had suffered five sharp-force wounds and ten blunt-force wounds, and that it took a “significant period of time” for Lindstrom to die, given the large amount of bruising on Lindstrom's body. (Dr. Fallico explained that bruising is caused by blood leakage, and that this leakage normally will not occur absent the blood pressure generated by a beating heart.) Dr. Fallico also noted that Lindstrom had several stab wounds around his face—wounds serious enough to cause pain, but not serious enough to kill, and he concluded that it must have taken Lindstrom's assailant “a fairly long time to inflict these wounds”. Dr. Fallico testified that, given the location of Lindstrom's wounds, and the mechanical force that must have been applied to Lindstrom's body, one could say that Lindstrom had been subjected to “torture”.
But Dr. Fallico died before Christian was brought to trial, so his successor as medical examiner, Dr. Robert Whitmore, testified at the trial. Dr. Whitmore's testimony did not provide the same level of support for the State's assertion of torture, because Dr. Whitmore disagreed with, or at least was hesitant to endorse, several aspects of Dr. Fallico's analysis.
The pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections contained a summary of Dr. Fallico's analysis and conclusions, and the author of the report expressly cited Dr. Fallico's findings as the author's basis for asserting that Christian tortured Lindstrom.
Christian's attorney objected to this portion of the pre-sentence report. The defense attorney pointed out that Christian had never had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Fallico, and that Dr. Whitmore's analysis and conclusions differed from Dr. Fallico's on several key points. The defense attorney argued that, because Dr. Whitmore's testimony was the product of an adversarial process, it should supersede the pre-sentence report's hearsay account of Dr. Fallico's analysis and conclusions—and, therefore, Dr. Fallico's analysis and conclusions should be deleted from the pre-sentence report to the extent that they were inconsistent with Dr. Whitmore's testimony.
The sentencing judge—Superior Court Judge Philip R. Volland—acknowledged the disparities between Dr. Fallico's conclusions and Dr. Whitmore's conclusions, and he further acknowledged that Dr. Fallico's conclusions had never been tested by cross-examination. However, Judge Volland declined to remove the descriptions of Dr. Fallico's conclusions from the pre-sentence report. Instead, the judge declared that he would give more weight to Dr. Whitmore's testimony.
On appeal, Christian argues that Alaska Criminal Rule 32.1(f)(5) required Judge Volland to delete the contested portions of the pre-sentence report—because Christian relied on Dr. Whitmore's testimony to challenge those portions of the pre-sentence report, because the State offered no witnesses to contradict Dr. Whitmore's testimony, and because the State essentially conceded that Dr. Whitmore's testimony was more accurate. See Cragg v. State, 957 P.2d 1365, 1367–68 (Alaska App.1998).
On appeal, the State acknowledges that, under Criminal Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wonhola v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11011
...and Administrative Rule 23(a). 1. See, e.g., Rusenstrom v. Rusenstrom, 981 P.2d 558, 560-61 (Alaska 1999); Christian v. State, 276 P.3d 479, 489 (Alaska App. 2012); Savely v. State, 180 P.3d 961, 962 (Alaska App. 2008); Douglas v. State, 166 P.3d 61, 85 (Alaska App. 2007). 2. See Richards v......
-
Barron-Katairoak v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-12214
...and Administrative Rule 24(d). 1. AS 11.41.230(a)(1). 2. See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011). 3. Christian v. State, 276 P.3d 479, 489 (Alaska App. 2012) (citing Rusenstrom v. Rusenstrom, 981 P.2d 558, 560-61 (Alaska 1999); Bird v. Starkey, 914 P.2d 1246, 1248 n.1 (Alaska 19......
-
Gilbert v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11272
...than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."), quoted in Estes v. State, 249 P.3d 313, 316 (Alaska App. 2011); Christian v. State, 276 P.3d 479, 488 (Alaska App. 2012) (same). 4. See Roussel v. State, 115 P.3d 581, 585 (Alaska App. 2005) (appellate court reviews the denial of a requ......
-
Akelkok v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-12843
...S.Ct. 202, 50 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976), and United States v. Leon Guerrero , 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1988) ).24 See Christian v. State , 276 P.3d 479, 483-84 (Alaska App. 2012) ; Cragg v. State , 957 P.2d 1365, 1368 (Alaska App. 1998).25 Peterson v. Ek , 93 P.3d 458, 467 (Alaska 2004) ("We ......
-
Wonhola v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11011
...and Administrative Rule 23(a). 1. See, e.g., Rusenstrom v. Rusenstrom, 981 P.2d 558, 560-61 (Alaska 1999); Christian v. State, 276 P.3d 479, 489 (Alaska App. 2012); Savely v. State, 180 P.3d 961, 962 (Alaska App. 2008); Douglas v. State, 166 P.3d 61, 85 (Alaska App. 2007). 2. See Richards v......
-
Barron-Katairoak v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-12214
...and Administrative Rule 24(d). 1. AS 11.41.230(a)(1). 2. See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011). 3. Christian v. State, 276 P.3d 479, 489 (Alaska App. 2012) (citing Rusenstrom v. Rusenstrom, 981 P.2d 558, 560-61 (Alaska 1999); Bird v. Starkey, 914 P.2d 1246, 1248 n.1 (Alaska 19......
-
Gilbert v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11272
...than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."), quoted in Estes v. State, 249 P.3d 313, 316 (Alaska App. 2011); Christian v. State, 276 P.3d 479, 488 (Alaska App. 2012) (same). 4. See Roussel v. State, 115 P.3d 581, 585 (Alaska App. 2005) (appellate court reviews the denial of a requ......
-
Akelkok v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-12843
...S.Ct. 202, 50 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976), and United States v. Leon Guerrero , 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1988) ).24 See Christian v. State , 276 P.3d 479, 483-84 (Alaska App. 2012) ; Cragg v. State , 957 P.2d 1365, 1368 (Alaska App. 1998).25 Peterson v. Ek , 93 P.3d 458, 467 (Alaska 2004) ("We ......