Main Menu

Lord v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Clara Nieman

In Lord v. State, 489 P.3d 374 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that Alaska’s “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) statutes did not violate equal protection of GBMI defendants by denying them the same treatment given to defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity, and that a criminal defendant was not prejudiced by her attorney’s failure to raise certain claims at trial. (Id. at 378). Cynthia Lord was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for killing her three teenage sons. (Id. at 376). There was no dispute that Lord was severely mentally ill, but the trial court rejected her insanity defense and found her guilty but mentally ill (GBMI). (Id.). On appeal, Lord challenged Alaska’s insanity and GBMI statutes on both due process and cruel and unusual punishment grounds, but the court of appeals affirmed her convictions and the constitutionality of both statutes. (Id.). Lord also filed an application for post-conviction relief, arguing that her trial attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that Alaska’s GBMI statutes unconstitutionally denied equal protection to GBMI inmates. (Id. at 376–77). The superior court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the application for post-conviction relief. (Id. at 377). On appeal, the court of appeals held that Lord had not been prejudiced by her trial attorneys’ failure to challenge the future conditions of her confinement, because she could still challenge those conditions in a civil suit. (Id. at 380). Similarly, Lord had not been prejudiced by her trial attorneys’ failure to raise constitutional challenges, because her appellate attorney had raised those challenges in her direct appeal. (Id. at 378). Notwithstanding serious concerns about Alaska’s GBMI statutes raised in concurring and dissenting opinions, the court of appeals deferred to its precedents upholding the constitutionality of Alaska’s unique GBMI statutory scheme. (Id. at 379). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that Alaska’s “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) statutes did not violate equal protection of GBMI defendants by denying them the same treatment given to defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity, and that a criminal defendant was not prejudiced by her attorney’s failure to raise certain claims at trial. (Id. at 378).

Lord v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Clara Nieman

In Lord v. State, 489 P.3d 374 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that Alaska’s “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) statutes did not violate equal protection of GBMI defendants by denying them the same treatment given to defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity, and that a criminal defendant was not prejudiced by her attorney’s failure to raise certain claims at trial. (Id. at 378). Cynthia Lord was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for killing her three teenage sons. (Id. at 376). There was no dispute that Lord was severely mentally ill, but the trial court rejected her insanity defense and found her guilty but mentally ill (GBMI). (Id.). On appeal, Lord challenged Alaska’s insanity and GBMI statutes on both due process and cruel and unusual punishment grounds, but the court of appeals affirmed her convictions and the constitutionality of both statutes. (Id.). Lord also filed an application for post-conviction relief, arguing that her trial attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that Alaska’s GBMI statutes unconstitutionally denied equal protection to GBMI inmates. (Id. at 376–77). The superior court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the application for post-conviction relief. (Id. at 377). On appeal, the court of appeals held that Lord had not been prejudiced by her trial attorneys’ failure to challenge the future conditions of her confinement, because she could still challenge those conditions in a civil suit. (Id. at 380). Similarly, Lord had not been prejudiced by her trial attorneys’ failure to raise constitutional challenges, because her appellate attorney had raised those challenges in her direct appeal. (Id. at 378). Notwithstanding serious concerns about Alaska’s GBMI statutes raised in concurring and dissenting opinions, the court of appeals deferred to its precedents upholding the constitutionality of Alaska’s unique GBMI statutory scheme. (Id. at 379). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that Alaska’s “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) statutes did not violate equal protection of GBMI defendants by denying them the same treatment given to defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity, and that a criminal defendant was not prejudiced by her attorney’s failure to raise certain claims at trial. (Id. at 378).