In Allison v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding evidence regarding the alleged victim’s potential Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) in defendant’s second-degree murder trial. Clayton Allison was charged with manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and second-degree murder after his 15-month old daughter, J.A., suffered a fatal injury while in his care. At trial, Allison claimed that J.A.’s injuries resulted from a fall down a staircase, not from homicide. J.A. had multiple known but undiagnosed health problems before her death. After J.A.’s death, J.A.’s mother and her relatives were diagnosed with EDS, a genetic disorder associated with excessive bleeding. At a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Allison’s request to present any evidence regarding EDS after finding the evidence to be too speculative. On appeal, Allison argued that the trial court erred in excluding this evidence. The court of appeals agreed. The court of appeals first ruled that Alaska Evidence Rule 702 did not require Allison to present an expert on EDS in order to present information about the syndrome. Next, the court of appeals ruled that Allison was not required to present an expert who could diagnose J.A. with EDS “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” in order to present evidence about the syndrome. Finally, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s exclusion of the EDS evidence was not harmless because it severely limited Allison’s ability to present favorable evidence. Accordingly, court of appeals held that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding the EDS evidence and reversed Allison’s conviction.
[1] 448 P.3d 266 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019)
