Craig Lasley Daugherty v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Craig Lasley Daugherty,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Trial Court Case No. 4FA-24-02289CR
Court of Appeals No. A-14617
Order
Date of Order: March 17, 2025
Before: Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges.
Craig Lasley Daugherty is charged with two counts of second-degree
sexual abuse of a minor for alleged conduct involving seven-year-old G.W.1 According
to the affidavit accompanying the complaint, G.W. reported two specific incidents in
late 2024 in which Daugherty directed G.W. to touch Daugherty’s penis. G.W. also
reported that Daugherty had been sexually abusing him since 2021.
At the time of G.W.’s report, Daugherty, who is in his late fifties, was
employed as the director of religious education at Fort Wainwright and as a youth pastor
at a local church. Daugherty lived with G.W. and G.W.’s father, in a basement
apartment that Daugherty rented from the father. Daugherty first met G.W.’s father
when he served as the father’s youth pastor, at a church outside Alaska.
When confronted by law enforcement officers, Daugherty admitted that
there had been two recent occasions involving inappropriate contact with G.W., but he
claimed that G.W. had initiated the contact. Daugherty has no prior criminal history.
Daugherty was arraigned on November 27, 2024. He told the court that he
earned approximately $90,000 annually, but stated that he also had several debts and
1 AS 11.41.436(a)(2).

Daugherty v. State, A-14617
March 17, 2025 – p. 2
only a few thousand dollars in the bank. In response to a question from his attorney,
Daugherty said that he could post $10,000 using a credit card. Daugherty’s attorney
asked the court to impose a $10,000 cash performance bond, an unsecured appearance
bond, and house arrest with electronic monitoring. The district court rejected this
proposal and imposed a $250,000 cash performance bond and a $300,000 appearance
bond, and required a third-party custodian. Daugherty was subsequently indicted on the
two charges.
A bail review hearing was held on January 2, 2025 before the superior
court. Daugherty asked the court to reduce bail to a $10,000 cash performance bond
and an unsecured appearance bond of $100,000, to remove the third-party custodian
requirement, and to place him on house arrest with electronic monitoring. Defense
counsel informed the court that Daugherty would be residing by himself in a cabin in
North Pole.
The State opposed reducing bail, arguing that Daugherty’s proposal did
not adequately protect the community because the circumstances of the offense were
very serious, the case against Daugherty was strong, and Daugherty held a position of
trust and authority that gave him access to minors. G.W.’s father also spoke against the
bail proposal, stating that “because of the nature of [Daugherty’s] job and church
relationships, it will be extremely hard for [Daugherty] to be adequately held
accountable and monitored when it comes to being kept away from other children.” He
further stated, “In the past year, [Daugherty] has talked with me [at] length about other
kids in the Fairbanks community,” noting that “as a chaplain and deacon, [Daugherty]
privately counseled at least one kid and other parents who’[ve] had their own sexual
problems in school” and had gone “above and beyond to interject himself into their
situations.”

Daugherty v. State, A-14617
March 17, 2025 – p. 3
The trial court reviewed each of the bail factors under AS 12.30.011(c).
The court stated that the circumstances of the charged offenses left it with “very
significant concern about the safety of [G.W.] and more broadly, other children in the
community.” After considering the bail factors, the trial court ultimately rejected
Daugherty’s bail proposal to be placed on house arrest with electronic monitoring,
concluding that a third-party custodian was necessary. The court did not revisit the
monetary amounts set for the appearance and performance bonds, but indicated its
willingness to do so if Daugherty came forward with a proposed third-party custodian.
Daugherty now appeals this bail decision.
Article I, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution entitles criminal
defendants to pretrial release on bail.2 Both the United States and Alaska Constitutions
prohibit the imposition of “excessive” bail.3 Excessive bail is that which goes beyond
the amount actually necessary to fulfill the purposes of bail — i.e., to reasonably assure
the defendant’s appearance and the safety of the community.4 Consistent with the right
to bail, Alaska law requires trial judges to impose the “least restrictive condition or
conditions that will reasonably ensure the person’s appearance and protect the victim,
other persons, and the community.”5
2 See Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 51 (Alaska 1971).
3 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.
4 Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
5 AS 12.30.011(b).

Daugherty v. State, A-14617
March 17, 2025 – p. 4
We review a trial judge’s decision to impose a particular bail condition —
including a third-party custodian requirement — for an abuse of discretion.6
We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
a third-party custodian was necessary to reasonably ensure public safety. Alaska Statute
12.30.011(d)(2) provides that, for defendants who are charged with sexual felonies,
“there is a rebuttable presumption that . . . the person poses a danger to the victim, other
persons, or the community.” As relayed in the complaint, G.W. alleged that Daugherty
had been abusing him since 2021. Daugherty admitted that inappropriate contact with
G.W. occurred twice in late 2024. Although Daugherty claimed that G.W. initiated this
contact, Daugherty nonetheless acknowledged that he did not report the incidents to
G.W.’s father, which calls into question Daugherty’s willingness to forthrightly report
incidents involving minors. And the information before the court indicated that during
his long-time work as a youth pastor, Daugherty has developed relationships of trust
with other minors.
Daugherty compares his case to our unpublished bail decisions in Wagner
v. State and Ingham v. State, in which we cautioned trial courts against denying requests
for electronic monitoring based on speculation that the defendant might engage in other
6 AS 12.30.030(b); Francis v. State, 2021 WL 1346285, at *2 (Alaska App. Jan. 15,
2021) (unpublished bail order) (“Absent legal error, we review a trial court’s decision to
impose a particular bail amount for an abuse of discretion.”); see, e.g., Redfox v. State,
2021 WL 12168193, at *2 (Alaska App. Apr. 1, 2021) (unpublished bail order) (finding no
abuse of discretion in imposition of third-party custodian requirement); Linden v.
Municipality of Anchorage, 2017 WL 11670200, at *1-2 (Alaska App. Dec. 1, 2017)
(unpublished bail order) (finding no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of defendant’s
proposal that did not include a third-party custodian requirement).

Daugherty v. State, A-14617
March 17, 2025 – p. 5
sexual misconduct and that such monitoring would afford the defendant the opportunity
to do so.7 But we conclude that these cases are distinguishable on their facts.
In Wagner, the defendant was accused of sexually abusing a seventeen-
year-old girl who was in his care as a foster child.8 At the time of the charged offenses,
Wagner was living in Nome.9 He proposed a bail release plan that would require him
to move from his home community in Nome to Anchorage, where he would live with
his wife and would be on house arrest.10 The trial court’s primary reason for rejecting
the proposal was its concern that ankle monitoring could not detect, and therefore could
not protect against, Wagner “having intercourse with an underage person in his
[proposed residence].”11 We concluded that there was nothing in the record to support
the notion that Wagner would begin sexually abusing other children if he were released
under the conditions he proposed.12
In Ingham, the defendant’s charges stemmed from a single incident
involving an adult he knew.13 We likewise dismissed as speculative “the district court’s
prediction that Ingham would begin sexually assaulting random other women as soon
7 Wagner v. State, 2021 WL 1346286, at *3 (Alaska App. Jan. 14, 2021) (unpublished
bail order); Ingham v. State, 2015 WL 13930509, at *2 (Alaska App. July 6, 2015)
(unpublished bail order).
8 Wagner, 2021 WL 1346286, at *1.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at *2.
12 Id. at *3.
13 Ingham, 2015 WL 13930509, at *1.

Daugherty v. State, A-14617
March 17, 2025 – p. 6
as he was placed on electronic monitoring and he no longer had a third-party
custodian.”14
By contrast, Daugherty is accused of repeatedly engaging in sexual
misconduct with a very young child, and the court heard from the alleged victim’s father
that, in his role of trust in the church community and as a youth pastor, Daugherty has
had significant contacts with minors and has interjected himself into their personal
affairs involving sexual problems.
Given this record, the trial court could reasonably conclude that
Daugherty would pose a significant risk to minors if he were permitted to live alone in
the Fairbanks area, and it could reasonably conclude that a third-party custodian was
necessary to address that risk.
As the trial court acknowledged, the court should reconsider the monetary
amount of the appearance and performance bonds if Daugherty proposes an acceptable
third-party custodian.15 If, at that time, the court continues to conclude that amounts
beyond Daugherty’s ability to pay should be required, the court should explain why
those amounts are necessary to reasonably ensure Daugherty’s appearance and the
protection of the alleged victim and the public.16
14 Id. at *2.
15 See Harris v. State, 2021 WL 5029385, at *3 (Alaska App. Oct. 28, 2021)
(unpublished bail order) (“[I]t is incumbent on the court, upon approval of appropriate
third-party custodians or other monitoring conditions, to re-assess the monetary bail in light
of the bail conditions as a whole.”).
16 See Sergie v. State, 2021 WL 3277199, at *3 (Alaska App. July 30, 2021)
(unpublished bail order) (“[A] trial court that sets a monetary bail above the defendant’s
ability to pay must provide a ‘particularized statement’ that addresses how the monetary
amount was calculated and that directly explains ‘why no less restrictive conditions will

Daugherty v. State, A-14617
March 17, 2025 – p. 7
We therefore AFFIRM the superior court’s January 2, 2025 bail order.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
______________________________
Ryan Montgomery-Sythe,
Chief Deputy Clerk
cc: Judge Haines
Trial Court Clerk - Fairbanks
Distribution:
Email:
Yff, Eric David, Public Defender
Lucas, Shaun P
suffice.’”) (citing Francis v. State, 2021 WL 1346285, at *2 n. 10 (Alaska App. Jan. 15,
2021) (unpublished bail order)).