CRIMINAL LAW
Mary Beth Barksdale
In Baer v. State, 499 P.3d 1037 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that a conviction for second-degree theft was proper where a social security card was stolen, that admission of evidence from the initial theft of the card was not clear error, and that special probation conditions were not clear error where based on the defendant’s history and imposed to protect victims or those negatively impacted by the theft. (Id. at 1039). Baer was convicted of second-degree theft and of providing false information by the trial court, based in part on the theft of a social security card. (Id. at 1039–40). Baer appealed on three claims of error: first, that a social security card should not qualify as an “access device” under Alaska’s second-degree theft statute, AS 11.46.130(a)(7), (Id. at 1040); second, that the court erroneously admitted evidence of an uncharged burglary, (Id. at 1042); and third, that portions of Baer’s sentence to Special Probation Conditions were erroneous, (Id. at 1043–44). The court of appeals first determined that a social security card was an access device because, while also defined as an identification document, a social security card was also necessarily an access device because it contains a social security number, one of the statutorily listed examples of an access device. (Id. at 1041). Next, the court of appeals found that admission of evidence suggesting that Baer had committed the initial burglary in which the social security card was stolen – among other items – was not plain error because it did not improperly impact the jury’s decision. (Id. at 1043). Finally, the court of appeals found that requiring Baer to inquire into specific medical alternatives when consulting a physician and to refrain from contact with the owner of the social security card or the storage unit from which the card was stolen was not plain error because neither probation requirement violated Baer’s privacy rights or his rights to travel or to free association. (Id. at 1044). Therefore, the court of appeals held that a conviction for second-degree theft was proper where a social security card was stolen, that admission of evidence from the initial theft of the card was not clear error, and that special probation conditions were not clear error where based on the defendant’s history and imposed to protect victims or those negatively impacted by the theft. (Id. at 1039).
