Douglas v. State
| Decision Date | 14 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. S-12857.,S-12857. |
| Parties | Ty S. DOUGLAS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
David D. Reineke and Alexandra Foote-Jones, Assistant Public Defenders, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Petitioner. Tamara E. de Lucia, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Juneau, for Respondent.
Before: FABE, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, CARPENETI, and WINFREE, Justices.
After Ty Douglas repeatedly and egregiously misbehaved during pretrial hearings for two years, the trial court excluded him from the courtroom during his jury trial on charges of witness tampering and unlawful contact, but allowed him to participate by speakerphone. Midtrial Douglas asked to testify in person. The trial court denied this request after finding that Douglas's promise to behave was not credible. After Douglas was convicted, the court of appeals affirmed. Douglas has petitioned for hearing.
A trial court may exclude a criminal defendant for disruptive behavior. Although the court must allow an excluded criminal defendant an opportunity to reclaim his right to be present if he demonstrates willingness to behave appropriately, it is not obliged to uncritically accept every promise to behave. The trial court did not abuse its discretion either by removing Douglas from the courtroom or by refusing his later request to reenter. We therefore affirm the court of appeals' opinion affirming Douglas's conviction.
Ty Douglas was charged with sexually assaulting and beating his girlfriend, K.I.1 Douglas was prohibited from having any contact with K.I. while the assault case was pending. While Douglas was in custody awaiting trial on those charges, 828 calls to K.I. were placed from the jail where Douglas was being held. K.I. wrote a letter to the district attorney recanting her allegations that Douglas had assaulted her and saying that she caused her own injuries. Shortly thereafter K.I. told a police officer that Douglas had been calling her from the jail and that she had been taking his calls. Consequently, in October 2002, even before the assault case went to trial, Douglas was also charged with three counts of first-degree witness tampering,2 ten counts of first-degree unlawful contact,3 and ten counts of attempted first-degree unlawful contact.4
The assault case went to trial first. Superior Court Judge Larry R. Weeks presided.5 Douglas was apparently present in the courtroom during the trial.6 When the jury returned guilty verdicts on all of the assault charges, Douglas spat at the jurors and spectators and said he hoped they contracted diseases.7 Judge Weeks ordered Douglas physically restrained at all further hearings in the assault case.8 The assault convictions were ultimately affirmed on appeal.9
The trial on the witness tampering and unlawful contact charges was assigned to Superior Court Judge Michael A. Thompson, but trial was delayed pending the outcome of the assault case.
During the two-year period in which Judge Thompson held a series of pretrial hearings in the witness tampering case, Douglas's behavior was gravely disruptive and disrespectful. The court of appeals' published opinion accurately describes Douglas's misbehavior in great detail.10 Douglas frequently interrupted the proceedings in the witness tampering case, often to argue facts relevant only to the sexual assault case. He repeatedly insulted the prosecutor, his own attorneys, and Judge Thompson during these hearings. The court of appeals stated:
[At a calendar call on January 16, 2004] Douglas told Judge Thompson that he wanted to represent himself. Douglas then launched into a lengthy recitation of complaints about the way his former attorney had mishandled the sexual assault trial. Douglas proclaimed his innocence, and he suggested that he had been convicted of sexual assault through the bad faith and improper conduct of the authorities, as well as the incompetence of his own attorney.
. . . .
Toward the end of [a March 2, 2004] hearing, Douglas suddenly erupted with invective and charges of corruption against the prosecutor. Douglas himself suggested that he should participate telephonically in future hearings, so that he would not have to look at the prosecutor.
... (Extensive transcript passages omitted.)
[O]n June 3, 2004, Judge Thompson held a hearing[, at which Douglas appears to have been present in court,] to set a date for the witness tampering trial.
. . . .
Douglas ... interrupted [the court], proclaiming at length that the prosecutor was suppressing evidence that would have demonstrated his innocence of the sexual assault charges, and that his own attorney was refusing or neglecting to file important motions. During his remarks, Douglas insulted and swore at his own attorney, the prosecutor, and Judge Thompson. In the end, Douglas's behavior led Judge Thompson to declare that Douglas would be excluded from further hearings in the case.
... (Extensive transcript passages omitted.)
The pre-trial motion hearing was held on June 14th.... Douglas ... personally attended this hearing.
. . . .
Douglas again gratuitously insulted the defense attorney, declared that the attorney was incompetent, and asked Judge Thompson to dismiss the attorney and appoint a new one. Douglas also again gratuitously insulted the prosecutor and declared that the prosecutor was guilty of criminal conduct.
Toward the end of this conversation, Douglas launched into a soliloquy that was unrelated to the procedural issues that the attorneys and the judge were discussing— a soliloquy in which Douglas asserted that the evidence showed that he was innocent of the sexual assaults.
Based on Douglas's behavior, Judge Thompson again ruled that Douglas would not be allowed to attend the trial.
... (Extensive transcript passages omitted.)
[On June 15, 2004, Judge Thompson ordered that Douglas undergo a competency evaluation.]
... (Extensive transcript passages omitted.)
[T]oward the end of August 2004, Judge Thompson held a hearing to announce the result of the mental examination: the psychologist from API had concluded that Douglas was competent to stand trial.
. . . .
When Judge Thompson announced the result of the mental evaluation, Douglas responded with another rambling protestation that he had been unjustly convicted of the sexual assaults, and he again asked Judge Thompson to appoint him a new attorney, but the judge again refused.[11]
Douglas had three noteworthy outbursts that are not described in detail in the court of appeals' opinion. At the January 16, 2004 calendar call, Douglas asked about prosecuting the prosecutor for perjury and called the prosecutor a "Nazi bastard." At an August 20, 2004 status hearing, Douglas argued that his attorney should be removed. He also discussed the evidence from the assault trial and argued that he should not have been convicted in the assault trial because the victim was "a liar." On August 27, 2004, there was another outburst, which we describe in detail below.
Douglas also had difficulty dealing with his own attorneys. He was represented by at least seven different attorneys in the superior court,12 and he struck one of the attorneys who represented him on the witness tampering charges in the face.
During the hearings in which Douglas exhibited disruptive conduct, Judge Thompson repeatedly interjected when Douglas discussed facts relevant only to the assault case, and stated there was nothing he, Judge Thompson, could do about the assault trial. Judge Thompson also repeatedly warned Douglas that if he continued to engage in disruptive behavior, he would be removed from the courtroom.
The jury trial on the witness tampering charges had been scheduled to begin June 15, 2004. On June 3, 2004, Judge Thompson stated from the bench that he planned to exclude Douglas from trial because Douglas could not control himself. On June 14, 2004, Judge Thompson reiterated that intention, explaining that "the jury ... would be looking for ways ... to throttle Mr. Douglas, if not convict him, and ... under the circumstances he can't get a fair trial if he's in the courtroom." Douglas was present in the courtroom when Judge Thompson made these comments. Douglas certainly heard and responded to the remarks. The next day Judge Thompson concluded that Douglas had "forfeited" his right to be present, because Douglas refused to behave himself despite what Judge Thompson called the court's "pressuring and cajolery and threats." Judge Thompson stated that Douglas "would just simply prejudice the jury against himself and that he was not willing to subdue Douglas with "mechanical or medical means" just so Douglas could be present in the courtroom. Douglas's attorney objected to the exclusion. Judge Thompson said that the court would take "frequent breaks" to give Douglas's attorney an opportunity to confer with Douglas.
On June 15, 2004, when the trial was about to commence, Judge Thompson ordered a competency evaluation at the request of Douglas's attorney, and continued the trial until August 31. The psychologist who evaluated Douglas reported that Douglas was competent to stand trial and that "[t]o the extent that he does not cooperate with his attorney, it is because he chooses not to do so." The psychologist stated that Douglas was "capable of conforming his behavior to courtroom protocol" but was "just not willing to do so," and that Douglas "can be expected to publicly vent his frustration as a form of protesting his circumstances."
On August 27, 2004, at the final status hearing before the rescheduled trial, Douglas was again disruptive and disrespectful. He interrupted the proceedings to argue facts relevant only to the assault case, accused the prosecutor of misconduct and called him "insane," and called...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anthony
...part, 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir.1976) (holding that a defendant may forfeit the privilege to testify through conduct); Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 322 (Alaska 2009) (applying the Allen standards to determine whether the defendant forfeited his right to testify in person through misconduct)......
-
Morrison v. State
...a court to offer a defendant the opportunity to reclaim his position in the courtroom by altering his behavior. Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 323 (Alaska 2009).However, what steps a trial court must take to ensure that a defendant is allowed the opportunity to reclaim his right to be pres......
-
Partee v. State
...Others have emphasized courts' discretion to not accept at face value a defendant's promise to behave. See, e.g., Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 317 (Alaska 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion where judge his willingness to take breaks and provide Douglas with paper and pen so Douglas co......