John Stapleton v. State of Alaska

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law, although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may have. See McCoy v. State, 80 P.3d 757, 764 (Alaska App. 2002).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
JOHN LEE STAPLETON,
Appellant,
V.
STATE OF ALASKA,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-14138 Trial Court No. 1YA-18-00009 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 7220 - October 14, 2026
Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Juneau, Amy G. Mead, Judge.
Appearances: Justin N. Gillette, Assistant Public Defender, and Terrence Haas, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Madison M. Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Stephen J. Cox, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Beach and Haines, Judges. Judge HAINES.
John Lee Stapleton was convicted, after a jury trial, of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing his friend, John Fergerson Sr.1 The two men were on a
1 AS 11.41.110(a)(1).

– 2 – 	7220
fishing trip with Stapleton’s ex-girlfriend, Tracy Sitherwood. At the State’s request, the
superior court admitted, under Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b)(1), evidence of two prior
instances of Stapleton’s jealous and possessive behavior in his relationship with
Sitherwood.
Stapleton now appeals his conviction, arguing that the superior court erred
in admitting this evidence under Evidence Rules 404(b)(1) and 403. For the reasons
explained in this opinion, we affirm the court’s judgment.
Background facts and proceedings
In October 2018, John Stapleton traveled from Washington to Yakutat
with his friend, John Fergerson Sr., to join Stapleton’s ex-girlfriend, Tracy Sitherwood,
and her father on a fishing trip. Stapleton and Sitherwood had dated “on-again off-
again” for approximately two years before ending their romantic relationship in the
month prior to the trip.
During the trip to Yakutat, Stapleton told Sitherwood that he loved her
and wanted to be in a relationship with her. According to Sitherwood, she did not
reciprocate these feelings. To the contrary, she told Stapleton she “was tired of this”
and she just “want[ed] to be done.” She also told Stapleton that Fergerson was “going
to take care of [her].”
On the second day of the trip, Stapleton began drinking early in the
morning and fell asleep. While Stapleton slept, Sitherwood and Fergerson went to the
boat harbor with the captain of a fishing boat to assess whether the weather conditions
would permit them to go fishing that day. They ultimately determined that the weather
was too bad to go out on the water. When Sitherwood and Fergerson returned to
Sitherwood’s cabin, Stapleton was upset that they had not woken him before going to
the harbor.
Stapleton continued to drink throughout the day and into the evening.
After spending the evening with some of Sitherwood’s friends, Stapleton, Fergerson,

– 3 – 	7220
and Sitherwood gathered in the cabin that Stapleton and Fergerson were sharing during
the trip. Sitherwood testified that Stapleton went to the cabin’s master bedroom to lie
down.
According to Sitherwood’s trial testimony, Sitherwood and Fergerson
remained in the main room of the cabin, watching television together and talking. At
one point, Fergerson told Sitherwood that she could walk around in her panties if she
wanted. Although Sitherwood declined, Fergerson repeated the comment once or twice
more. Sitherwood testified that she took the comment as a joke because everyone had
been drinking and Fergerson liked “to joke around and tease around.” Stapleton’s
bedroom was adjacent to the main room, and the bedroom door was open when
Fergerson made these comments. Sitherwood did not know if Stapleton was awake or
asleep during this time.
At some point after Fergerson made these comments, Sitherwood left the
room and then returned to find Fergerson bleeding on the ground. Fergerson did not
appear to be breathing. Sitherwood called 911, and Stapleton appeared at her side and
began performing CPR on Fergerson. Although first responders attempted emergency
lifesaving measures, Fergerson was pronounced dead at the scene. A medical examiner
later determined that Fergerson had suffered three stab wounds to the chest, one of
which penetrated his heart, killing him.
In an interview with law enforcement, Stapleton explained that after they
all arrived back at the cabin, Fergerson was “super pissed at [him],” and he (Stapleton)
went to the kitchen to have a piece of pie and a steak he had cooked earlier. Stapleton
picked up a kitchen knife to cut the pie and the steak. According to Stapleton, Fergerson
was drunk and angry and “just came at” Stapleton. Stapleton stated that, with the
kitchen knife in hand, he tried to push Fergerson away. He estimated that he pushed
Fergerson two or three times. Stapleton stated he “had drank quite a bit” and described
himself as “super trashed.” He denied being angry or having any reason to want to hurt
Fergerson, whom he described as his best friend.

– 4 – 	7220
Stapleton was indicted on one count of first-degree murder and two counts
of second-degree murder.2
Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce, under Evidence
Rule 404(b)(1), evidence of prior instances of jealous behavior during Stapleton’s
relationship with his ex-wife, Valorie Pollock, and with Sitherwood. The State sought
to introduce evidence that Stapleton controlled Pollock’s contact with her friends and
family, that he regularly suspected her of cheating on him, that he got jealous if another
man looked at her, and that after their divorce he continued to follow her. With respect
to Sitherwood, the State sought to introduce evidence that Stapleton also controlled her
contact with her friends and family, that he checked on her randomly to monitor her
location, that he became angry in one incident when he believed a store clerk was staring
at her, and that he once kicked in Sitherwood’s bedroom door when she stated that she
wanted her own bedroom.3
The State argued that these instances were relevant to show Stapleton’s
motive and intent to stab Fergerson and to rebut a claim of mistake or accident.
Stapleton objected to admission of these prior instances, arguing that the evidence was
not relevant for any non-propensity purpose and that the prior instances would be more
prejudicial than probative.
The superior court issued a written order admitting some, but not all, of
the proposed prior instances. With respect to Sitherwood, the court allowed the State to
present evidence of only two prior instances of jealous behavior: that Stapleton once
got angry because a store employee looked at Sitherwood for too long and that he would
randomly show up to see that Sitherwood was home when she said she was.
2 	AS 11.41.100(a)(1)(A) and AS 11.41.110(a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively.
3 	The State’s initial notice of intent to introduce Stapleton’s other acts included more
instances of physical and verbal abuse of Sitherwood and Pollock. In its reply to Stapleton’s
opposition, the State narrowed its request to only these instances.

– 5 – 	7220
With respect to Pollock, the court likewise found two instances admissible: that
Stapleton became jealous when men looked at her and that he accused her of cheating
on him when she worked late. The court stated that these instances were probative of
Stapleton’s motive and intent, given the State’s theory that he stabbed Fergerson out of
jealousy. The court noted that the instances might also be admissible to prove lack of
mistake or accident depending on Stapleton’s theory of defense at trial. The court then
weighed the probative value of the evidence against the potential for prejudice, and
concluded under Evidence Rule 403 that the probative value was not outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice. The court found that the remaining instances proposed by
the State were not probative of Stapleton’s motive or intent to stab Fergerson.
Sitherwood testified at Stapleton’s trial about the prior instances that the
superior court had found admissible. In the first instance, Sitherwood testified that
Stapleton became upset about how long a store employee was looking at her. According
to Sitherwood, Stapleton got jealous and ushered Sitherwood out of the store. As to the
second instance, Sitherwood testified that Stapleton would randomly come home from
work to make sure Sitherwood was at home where she said she was. (The State
ultimately decided not to call Pollock as a witness, so the jury did not hear about
Stapleton’s prior acts with respect to Pollock.)
The 	superior 	court 	ruled 	that 	Stapleton 	was 	entitled 	to 	a 	limiting
instruction with respect to the prior instances admissible under Evidence Rule
404(b)(1). Stapleton declined the limiting instruction, explaining that he did not want
to highlight the issue to the jury. At Stapleton’s request, the court did not give the
instruction.
Consistent 	with 	Stapleton’s 	earlier 	statements 	to 	law 	enforcement,
Stapleton testified at trial that, with the kitchen knife in hand, he had repeatedly pushed
Fergerson away when Fergerson came at him aggressively. Stapleton stated that “I did
not stab the man on purpose,” and he characterized Fergerson’s death as a “tragedy.”

– 6 – 	7220
In closing argument, Stapleton argued that the stabbing had been an
accident and that the evidence did not support the State’s theory that Stapleton stabbed
Fergerson out of jealousy.
The jury acquitted Stapleton of first-degree murder, but found him guilty
of second-degree murder and a lesser-included offense of manslaughter.4 These
convictions merged into a single conviction for second-degree murder.
Why we uphold the superior court’s decision to admit the prior instances
of Stapleton’s jealous behavior involving Sitherwood under Evidence Rule
404(b)(1)
Under Evidence Rule 404(b)(1), evidence of a defendant’s other acts is
not admissible to prove the defendant’s character for committing such acts and to show
that, on the occasion in question, the defendant acted in conformity with that character.
But the rule allows evidence of other acts to be admitted for non-propensity purposes,
including to establish motive, intent, or absence of mistake or accident.5 A trial court
evaluating an attorney’s request to introduce evidence under Rule 404(b)(1) “must
identify the issues that are really being disputed — evaluating the evidence in light of
the way the parties are litigating the case.”6
Stapleton first argues that evidence of prior instances of jealousy during
his relationship with Sitherwood did not support any non-propensity purpose. But
Stapleton’s motive for stabbing Fergerson — and whether the stabbing was intentional
— were material issues in dispute. Stapleton’s defense theory at trial was that he did
not intentionally harm Fergerson. Instead, he told the jury, “This was an accident.” To
4 	AS 11.41.110(a)(1) and AS 11.41.120(a)(1), respectively.
5 	Alaska R. Evid. 404(b)(1); see Willock v. State, 400 P.3d 124, 127 (Alaska App.
2017).
6 	Willock, 400 P.3d at 127.

– 7 – 	7220
counter this argument, the State sought to establish that Stapleton stabbed Fergerson
out of jealousy and anger.
We have reviewed the superior court’s order admitting evidence of the
prior acts, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
Stapleton’s history of other instances of jealous conduct in his relationship with
Sitherwood had case-specific relevance to the issues of motive and intent, in light of
the respective theories of the case argued by each party.7
Stapleton next claims that the superior court erred in finding that the
probative value of this evidence outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.8 He argues
that the evidence “encouraged jurors to view Stapleton negatively as a man who aims
to control the movements and interactions of women he dates.”
We conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that the probative value of the two narrow and specific instances of prior jealous
behavior was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.9 We agree with the
superior court that details of the prior instances — i.e., that Stapleton became jealous
and upset on one occasion when he believed a store employee was staring at Sitherwood
for too long and that Stapleton would randomly come home from work to make sure
Sitherwood was where she said she was — were unlikely to lead the jury to decide the
case on improper grounds.
7 	See Weitz v. State, 794 P.2d 952, 955 (Alaska App. 1990) (noting that this Court
reviews admission of evidence under Evidence Rule 404(b) for an abuse of discretion).
8 	See Alaska R. Evid. 403.
9 	See Drummer v. State, 545 P.3d 452, 456-57 (Alaska App. 2024) (noting that this
Court will reverse a trial court’s application of Evidence Rule 403 only when a clear abuse
of discretion has been shown).

Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
-8-
7220