CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Mike Keramidas
Akelkok v. State
In Akelkok v. State, 475 P.3d 1136 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that the trial court did not violate Charles Akelkok’s due process rights through its efforts to have Annie Sergie testify. (Id. at 1142). Akelkok was convicted of third-degree assault for attacking his daughter after she and Sergie, Akelkok’s girlfriend at the time, found him with another woman. (Id. at 1137). The State subpoenaed Sergie as a witness for Akelkok’s trial. (Id.). She appeared drunk on the first day of trial and failed to show the next day. (Id.). She regularly appeared drunk or did not appear to testify. (Id. at 1138–39). The court therefore ordered that she be taken into custody. (Id. at 1139). After detaining Sergie for only a few minutes, the court changed its mind and found her competent to testify. (Id. at 1140). She then testified before the jury. (Id.). Akelkok appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court, by taking Sergie into custody, coerced her testimony, violating Akelkok’s due process rights. (Id.). The court of appeals held that the trial court’s actions were meant to ensure Sergie comply with her subpoena and be competent to testify. (Id. at 1142). The court reasoned that the record did not reflect an effort to compel Sergie to testify in a certain way. (Id.). Under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court’s actions did not coerce Sergie as to affect the substance of her testimony. (Id.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that the trial court did not violate Akelkok’s due process rights through its efforts to have Sergie testify. (Id.).
