C.J. v State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
C.J., )
) Court of Appeals No. A-13260
Appellant, )
v. ) Order
)
State of Alaska, )
)
Appellee. ) Date of Order: October 5, 2018
)
Trial Court Case # 4BE-18-00013DL
[Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, and Wollenberg, Judges.]
C.J., a minor, is facing a juvenile delinquency petition for conduct that
would constitute second-degree sexual assault, second-degree assault, fourth-degree
assault, and indecent photography if C.J. were an adult. These charges are based
primarily on C.J.’s conduct toward his eighteen-year-old girlfriend, who lives in Bethel.
At a detention review hearing, C.J. requested that he be released to the
custody of his mother, who lives in Anchorage. C.J.’s mother testified at the hearing,
stating that she lives with her boyfriend and that she would be available to supervise C.J.
because she does not work. The original release plan proposed that C.J. attend West
High School. However, Superior Court Judge Nathaniel Peters expressed reservations
about C.J. attending public school with other teenagers; C.J. and his mother then agreed
that C.J. would be home-schooled.
Judge Peters scheduled another detention hearing to address the details of
the home-schooling program and to clarify the living arrangements. Judge Peters

C.J. v. State - p. 2
File No. A-13260
October 5, 2018
indicated that he did not have concerns about C.J. attending future court hearings
because both of C.J.’s parents were present at the detention hearing. The judge also
indicated that the safety of the victim was not a concern because C.J. would be in a
different city. However, Judge Peters still had reservations regarding the safety of the
community in general and he wanted to speak directly with C.J.’s mother’s boyfriend.
Retired District Court Judge Raymond Funk sitting pro tempore presided
over C.J.’s second detention review hearing. At the second hearing, the mother’s
boyfriend appeared, as requested. However, Judge Funk did not question the boyfriend
or show any interest in what his role would be. The judge also did not question C.J.’s
mother about the home-schooling plan. Instead, Judge Funk was more concerned about
C.J.’s mother’s attitude towards the alleged victim, and the judge expressed concerns
about whether C.J.’s mother recognized the seriousness of the charges her son faced.
The judge also expressed more general concerns about mothers acting as third party
custodians for their children, noting that his experience had been that mothers did not
take their third party custodian responsibilities seriously. Stating that this was a “close
case,” the judge ultimately rejected the bail release plan.
C.J. now appeals that ruling to this Court. On appeal, C.J. argues that the
judge unfairly rejected the proposed release plan based on its prior experience in
different cases. C.J. points out that his mother was previously a third-party custodian for
her brother, and his mother is available to supervise him closely during his release. The
State argues that the judge based its decision on its in-court assessment of C.J.’s mother’s
credibility and her attitude towards the victim and the charges.
We agree with the State that, as an appellate court, we are not in a position
to second-guess a trial court’s assessment of a witness’s credibility and attitude.

C.J. v. State - p. 3
File No. A-13260
October 5, 2018
However, it is not clear from our review whether the second judge based his decision on
this assessment or on more general views regarding the suitability of mothers as third-
party custodians. We have reviewed both hearings. In the first hearing, the trial judge
raised specific concerns about the release plan that were never actually addressed in the
second hearing. In the second hearing, the judge focused on other concerns, some of
which do not appear sufficiently particularized to this individual case.
Because we agree with the second judge that this is a “close case,” we
conclude that C.J. should be given another opportunity to address all of the specific
concerns raised by the two judges and to present a comprehensive and detailed plan for
his release to his mother.
Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the superior court for a third
detention hearing.
Entered by direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
/s/ Marilyn May
Marilyn May
cc: Court of Appeals Judges
Judge Peters
Judge Funk
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
David Case
Alaska Public Defender Agency
P.O. Box 10
Bethel AK 99559
Nancy R Simel
Office of Criminal Appeals
1031 W. 4th Ave, Suite 200
Anchorage AK 99501