Joshua A. Wahl v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Joshua Wahl,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Trial Court Case No. 3DI-23-00202CR
Court of Appeals No. A-14807
Order
Date of Order: 11/5/2025
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.
Joshua Wahl is charged with multiple counts of first- and second-degree
urder in connection with the deaths of Jennifer Gardiner and Timothy Evans. After
everal bail hearings, Wahl remains in custody pending trial. Wahl now appeals from
he court’s ruling at his most recent bail hearing declining to approve his proposed third-
arty custodian.
At the bail hearing, Wahl requested that the court approve Nathaniel
andry as a third-party custodian, impose house arrest with private electronic
onitoring, and reduce his bail amount from a $200,000 cash performance bond to a
35,000 cash performance bond.
Landry testified at the hearing. He explained that he did not know Wahl
nd had never met or spoken to him. Rather, Wahl’s attorney had asked Landry to be a
hird-party custodian and Landry said that he wished to do so because, as a minister, he
elieved in second chances and thought he could make a difference in Wahl’s life.
andry stated that he had previously served as a third-party custodian without issue,
nderstood what was required of a third-party custodian, and would follow the court’s
rders and report any bail violations by Wahl.
m
s
t
p
L
m
$
a
t
b
L
u
o

Wahl v. State, File No. A-14807
November 5, 2025 – p. 2
Landry’s testimony revealed that he has substantial medical issues,
including kidney disease and chronic pain. He has multiple weekly medical
appointments, including dialysis three times per week and a weekly appointment for
wound care (for a recent surgical repair). On the days he has dialysis, he is normally
picked up between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m., on the dialysis machine for several hours, and
returned home by 5:00 p.m. Landry stated that Wahl could accompany him to dialysis.
Landry is required to take a number of daily medications, including narcotics. Landry
stated that he is ambulatory, but uses a walker for assistance as needed.
Landry testified that he anticipated that Wahl would be providing some
caretaking functions for him, including helping him to prepare his meals, bring
groceries into the house, and transport his walker when he is going down the stairs or
in and out of the house.
Initially, Landry had intended for Wahl to live with him, but the owners
of his apartment building did not approve of Wahl living in the building. Wahl instead
proposed living with Landry at Wahl’s family’s home. Landry testified that, although
he was familiar with the layout of the proposed residence and knew it was a ranch-style
house, he had never been there before.
The court (the same judge who had presided over Wahl’s prior bail
hearings) declined to approve Landry as Wahl’s third-party custodian. The court noted
the seriousness of the charges and stated that its primary goal was community safety
and ensuring that Wahl followed the court’s orders. While the court lauded the strength
of Landry’s faith and found Landry to be a bright and articulate person, the court noted
that it needed to consider Landry’s relationship to Wahl and whether Landry was
physically able to perform the duties of a third-party custodian.1 The court was struck
1 See AS 12.30.021(b) (providing that the court may appoint a person as a third-party
custodian if, inter alia, the proposed custodian provides information to the court about their

Wahl v. State, File No. A-14807
November 5, 2025 – p. 3
by how unusual it was that Landry had never met Wahl. The court also found that
Landry was “medically and physically fragile.” The court concluded that Landry’s need
to attend to his own substantial medical demands made him an inappropriate third-party
custodian for this murder case.
Wahl filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court erred in
finding that Landry was medically and physically frail, and that the record showed that
Landry was willing and able to fulfill the supervisory duties of a third-party custodian.2
The court denied Wahl’s motion for reconsideration.
Wahl now appeals, arguing that the record does not support the conclusion
that Landry is incapable of serving as an effective third-party custodian.
Absent legal error, we review the superior court’s denial of a third-party
custodian for an abuse of discretion.3 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.”4
We have listened to the recording of the bail review hearing, and the
court’s findings are supported by the record. The court could reasonably conclude that
Landry’s substantial obligations to his own health outside of the home made him an
unsuitable custodian in this case, particularly given the absence of any prior relationship
“relationship with the person” and the proposed custodian “is physically able to perform
the duties of custodian of the person”).
2 See Francis-Fields v. State, 2020 WL 9173374, at *1 (Alaska App. Dec. 17, 2020)
(unpublished bail order) (stating that “[t]he critical question is whether the proposed third-
party custodians are willing and able to fulfill the supervisory duties that will be required
of them”).
3 AS 12.30.030(a).
4 Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc.,
414 P.3d 646, 651 (Alaska 2018)).

Wahl v. State, File No. A-14807
November 5, 2025 – p. 4
between Landry and Wahl. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the court’s
decision.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Reigh
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
Email:
Butler, Rex L.
Adoko, Francis
Jungreis, Laura D.