Young v. State
| Docket Number | A-13776,7084 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 2023 |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN ANDRE YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Court of Appeals |
1
CHRISTIAN ANDRE YOUNG, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
No. A-13776
No. 7084
Court of Appeals of Alaska
December 27, 2023
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Trial Court No. 3AN-16-07375 CR Michael R. Spaan, Judge.
Elizabeth D. Friedman, Law Office of Elizabeth D. Friedman, Prineville, Oregon, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Kenneth M. Rosenstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HARBISON, JUDGE
Christian Andre Young was convicted, following a jury trial, of first-degree robbery, first-degree impersonating a public servant, and interference with official
proceedings.[1] The convictions were based on an incident in which Young pretended to be a police officer during a robbery and then bribed the complaining witness to not cooperate with the prosecution. Young raises two issues on appeal.
First, Young challenges his conviction for interference with official proceedings, contending that it was based on insufficient evidence or resulted from a flawed jury instruction. Second, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for first-degree impersonating a public servant. For the reasons explained in this decision, we reject Young's arguments and affirm his convictions.
Background facts and proceedings
On the night of June 20, 2016, Anchorage police officers responded to a report of an armed robbery of a guest at a local hotel. The guest, Jade Hart, reported to the police that a man (later identified as Young) contacted her through "backpage," an escorting website, and arranged to meet her at the hotel.
Hart later testified that Young entered her hotel room, displayed what appeared to be a police badge, and took out a pair of handcuffs. Young asked Hart "where's the money," but when Hart failed to answer, Young pulled out a pistol and pointed the gun at her. Hart then showed him where she kept her money. Young took $1,090 and her iPad and left the hotel room. Hart immediately called the front desk of the hotel to report the incident, and the front desk notified the police.
Two days later, Hart received a text message from Young saying that he would return her things if she did not contact the police. Hart replied, "I could care less I'm not from Alaska I just want my things [b]ack." Young did not respond. A few days
later, Hart texted Young to ask whether he was going to return her things, but again received no reply.
Meanwhile, the officer investigating the robbery, who had yet to identify Young as a suspect, learned that the robber had contacted Hart with a phone number associated with a person named Christian Young. About a week after the incident, the officer presented Hart with a photo lineup that included an image of Young, and Hart identified Young as the robber. Young was eventually arrested three months after the robbery occurred.
After Young was arrested, Hart received a phone call from Chante Garcia, the mother of Young's children, who said she had Hart's things and would return them if Hart "dropped the charges." Garcia told Hart that she would first give her $1,500 and the iPad, and that she would provide another $1,500 after Young was released from custody. Garcia then wired $1,500 to Hart's bank account and returned Hart's iPad.
The State initially charged Young and Garcia with interference with an official proceeding. Young was also charged with first-degree robbery and first-degree impersonating a public servant. Garcia reached an agreement with the State to testify against Young in exchange for having the charge against her dropped. Young's case proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, Garcia testified that after Young was arrested, Young asked her to return Hart's iPad, pay Hart $1,500, ask Hart not to talk to the police, and pay Hart another $1,500 after Young was released from custody. Garcia testified that she complied with Young's request and wired Hart the initial payment of $1,500. Garcia explained that she complied with the request because she wanted Young to be home for the birth of their child, and because she was afraid Young might get someone to hurt her if she did not cooperate.
Young also testified at trial. He told the jury that he contacted Hart through "backpage.com" and then met in her hotel room. According to Young, Hart's phone rang while they were discussing the amount that Hart would be paid, so Hart went into the bathroom to take the call. Young claimed that he then took Hart's iPad and the money she had on the nightstand and walked out of the room. He denied pulling out a gun, a badge, or handcuffs.
Young testified that the next day, he went through Hart's iPad and noticed that it had family photos on it, which made him feel bad. He then located Hart's contact information and tried to contact her to return the iPad and the money to her. Young testified that he did not get a "direct response" from Hart, so he did not return the items at that time.
After Young was arrested, he contacted Garcia and asked her to look in his storage unit for Hart's iPad. After Garcia located the iPad, Young suggested that, in addition to returning the iPad, Garcia should also give Hart $3,000. According to Young, he chose this amount because he wanted it to sound as "appealing as possible" to Hart so he would "not be charged with a robbery."
Young explained that once he had returned the iPad and given Hart the money, he expected "that everything [would be] good" because he was "replacing exactly and more than was taken from [Hart]." Young insisted that he did not have "malicious intent" when he contacted Hart, but just wanted to get out of jail so that he could be present for the birth of his child.
On cross-examination, Young admitted that he had texted Hart and offered to give everything back if the police were not involved. Young also agreed that it was his idea - not Garcia's - to approach Hart and offer her $3,000. He explained that the first $1,500 was given to reimburse Hart for the money he took from her, plus "a little extra," and that the other $1,500 was "contingent on her just not going along with the
prosecution." Young agreed with the prosecutor that "not going along" meant not cooperating with the prosecution, not answering subpoenas, and not answering the phone when investigators called. Young insisted he did not know that proposing such an agreement was illegal.
Before the jury began its deliberations, Young moved for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of impersonating a public servant, and the trial court denied his motion. The jury ultimately convicted Young of all three charges against him. He now appeals, challenging his convictions for interfering with an official proceeding and first-degree impersonating a public servant.
Why we reject Young's challenge to his conviction for interfering with an official proceeding
Young first challenges his conviction for interfering with an official proceeding under AS 11.56.510(a)(2)(A), which requires the State to prove, inter alia, that Young conferred, offered to confer, or agreed to confer a benefit upon Hart.[2]
On appeal, Young claims that the State failed to prove -and indeed, never argued - that he personally conferred, offered to confer, or agreed to confer a benefit upon Hart. Rather, Young contends that because he asked Garcia to confer the benefit upon Hart, Garcia was acting as the principal (i.e., the person who committed the underlying crime) and Young could only be convicted as an accomplice under AS 11.16.110 - the statutory provision defining when a defendant can be convicted based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial