Sidney R. Huntington v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Sidney R. Huntington,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-14467
Order
Bail Appeal
ate of Order: September 17, 2024	D
Trial Court Case No. 4DJ-18-00012CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges.
Sidney R. Huntington is currently in custody and charged with one count
of third-degree assault.1 He appeals the superior court’s May 21, 2024 denial of his
proposed third-party custodian. We affirm.
Huntington was originally indicted on one count of first-degree murder,
two counts of second-degree murder, and two counts of third-degree assault for the
murder of Melissa Erickson and the fear assaults of Robert Fifer and O.E.2 Huntington
filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, and the superior court dismissed the murder
counts and one of the two counts of third-degree assault pursuant to our decision in
State v. Powell.3
1 AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A).
2 AS 11.41.100(a)(1)(A), AS 11.41.110(a)(1) and (a)(2), and AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A),
respectively.
3 State v. Powell, 487 P.3d 609 (Alaska App. 2021).

Huntington v. State – p. 2
File No. A-14467 – 9/17/2024
The State filed a petition for review of the dismissal in this Court, which
we denied.4 The State then filed a petition for hearing in the Alaska Supreme Court.5
The supreme court granted the State’s petition and stayed consideration of the petition
pending the court’s decision on the merits of the State’s petition for hearing in Powell.6
The decision in Powell — and thus, the petition in this case — remain pending before
the supreme court.
In May 2024, Huntington proposed his mother, Sharon Huntington, as his
third-party custodian. At a bail hearing, the superior court took testimony from Ms.
Huntington and heard arguments by the parties. Ms. Huntington testified that, while it
would hurt her to have to report her son, she would do so if he left her sight or sound or
violated a condition of release. Ms. Huntington acknowledged that she had had
conversations with Huntington about the case, but she was inconsistent in her testimony
about how much she remembered of those conversations.
The court took the matter under advisement overnight so that it could
review the court file.
The following day, the court made findings and ruled on Huntington’s
request. The court recognized the difficult and unusual procedural posture of the case,
but it concluded that it needed to consider all of the allegations, including those
currently on appellate review. 7 The court also recognized that there were several
contested issues regarding the State’s theory of the case.
4 State v. Huntington, Court of Appeals File No. A-14228 (Order dated Sept. 14,
2023).
5 See State v. Huntington, Supreme Court File No. S-18897 (Order dated Jan. 8,
2024).
6 Id.
7 See AS 12.30.035 (“If the state appeals an order dismissing an indictment,
information, or complaint, . . . the court shall treat the defendant in accordance with the

Huntington v. State – p. 3
File No. A-14467 – 9/17/2024
But the court focused its attention on whether Ms. Huntington was a
suitable third-party custodian. Ultimately, based on the content of Ms. Huntington’s
answers and her demeanor, the court did not have confidence that Ms. Huntington
would be an accurate reporter who could reliably serve as the “eyes and ears of the
court.” The court therefore declined to approve her as Huntington’s third-party
custodian.8
Absent legal error, we review the superior court’s denial of a third-party
custodian for an abuse of discretion. 9 As we have previously stated, “The critical
question is whether the proposed third-party custodian[] [is] willing and able to fulfill
the supervisory duties that will be required of them.”10
Here, the court observed Ms. Huntington’s testimony and was able to
assess her tone and demeanor. The court recognized Ms. Huntington’s testimony that
she would be willing to report her son. 11 But based on its assessment of Ms.
provisions governing pretrial release under this chapter.”). Huntington acknowledged that
the court could consider the fact that the dismissed charges were still under review, but he
argued that the court should strongly weigh the fact that his only remaining charge was a
class C felony.
8 The court found that Ms. Huntington was not statutorily disqualified from serving
as a third-party custodian. See AS 12.30.021(c). Huntington had previously proposed Ms.
Huntington as his third-party custodian in this case, but his request was denied because
conversations between Huntington and his mother created the possibility that Ms.
Huntington would be a witness in his prosecution. At the latest bail hearing, the court
determined that Ms. Huntington likely would not be a witness on any contested issue and
therefore that she was not statutorily disqualified.
9 AS 12.30.030(a).
10 Francis-Fields v. State, 2020 WL 9173374, at *1 (Alaska App. Dec. 17, 2020)
(unpublished bail order).
11 The court also acknowledged that Ms. Huntington had previously served as a third-
party custodian for Huntington in an unrelated case.

Huntington v. State – p. 4
File No. A-14467 – 9/17/2024
Huntington’s testimony as a whole, the court lacked confidence about Ms. Huntington’s
willingness and ability to serve as an accurate reporter. The court found that Ms.
Huntington “appeared to downplay her memory problems when it was beneficial and
emphasize them when it wasn’t.” The court characterized Ms. Huntington as appearing
to engage in “selective reporting” about her past conversations with Huntington and
emphasized that the court needed assurance that a third-party custodian will be an
accurate reporter. The court indicated that it was not concerned with Ms. Huntington’s
memory itself, but rather with her reporting of that memory to the court.
Upon Huntington’s motion for reconsideration, the court indicated that it
had balanced the unusual procedural posture of the case, the statutory presumptions
associated with the original allegations, 12 and the totality of Ms. Huntington’s
testimony. The court noted that Ms. Huntington’s tone and demeanor changed
significantly when answering questions from the prosecutor or from defense counsel
and that the court was concerned “that she used her memory as a tool . . . when it was
beneficial to her.” The court therefore denied Huntington’s motion for reconsideration.
We will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court’s decision
was “arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from an improper
motive.”13 We have listened to the recording of the bail review hearing, and the court’s
findings are supported by the record. Ultimately, the trial judge is in a better position
than we are to assess the proposed third-party custodian. We find no abuse of discretion
in the court’s decision here.
We AFFIRM the trial court’s May 21, 2024 bail order.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
12 AS 12.30.011(d)(2).
13 Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc., 414 P.3d 646, 651 (Alaska 2018)).

Huntington v. State – p. 5
File No. A-14467 – 9/17/2024
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Schwalm
Trial Court Clerk - Fairbanks
Distribution:
Email:
Ralph, Anna Elizabeth
Butler, Rex L.