Daniel Knudson v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Daniel Joseph Knudson,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Trial Court Case No. 4FA-23-00775CR
Court of Appeals No. A-14458
Order
Bail Appeal
Date of Order: September 19, 2024
Before: 	Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges
Daniel Joseph Knudson appeals the superior court’s April 24, 2024 order
denying his request to modify bail. For the reasons described below, we remand this
case to the superior court for further proceedings.
Background facts and proceedings
Knudson is charged with fourteen counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a
minor for engaging in sexual penetration with fifteen-year-old R.A. 1 He has no prior
criminal history.
The charges against Knudson are based on R.A.’s report that, in December
2022, Knudson penetrated her vagina with his finger and penis on multiple occasions
when Knudson was R.A.’s foster parent. R.A. reported that many of these acts occurred
in the living room of Knudson’s home.
According to the felony complaint, officers subsequently located security
cameras throughout Knudson’s residence and discovered video recordings of Knudson
and R.A. on the living room couch, “cuddling” under a blanket. Officers also obtained
1 	AS 11.41.434(a)(2), (a)(3)(A).

Knudson v. State – p. 2
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
electronic data showing that Knudson deleted sixty-nine video recordings from the
living room camera in late December. When Knudson was interviewed, he denied any
sexual interaction with R.A. During a sexual assault examination, samples were taken
from R.A.’s vagina; two of the samples contained DNA that was consistent with
Knudson’s genetic profile.
Knudson was arrested on April 18, 2023, and appeared in court for the
first time the following day. After determining that Knudson was indigent, the court
appointed an attorney to represent him. Bail was set at a $200,000 cash performance
bond, and the court required Knudson to submit to 24-hour house arrest and to have his
location 	monitored by the Pretrial Enforcement Division. 	The court also required
Knudson to be supervised by a 24-hour sight and sound third-party custodian. As a
condition of Knudson’s release, the court prohibited Knudson from having any direct
or indirect contact with R.A. The court also prohibited Knudson from having any
contact with anyone under the age of eighteen.
On April 27, 2023, Knudson filed a request for a bail review hearing. He
asked the court to reduce the monetary bail to a $5,000 cash performance bond, but did
not ask the court to modify any of the existing nonmonetary conditions of release. The
court conducted a bail review hearing, and denied this request.
On December 19, 2023, Knudson filed a second request for a bail hearing,
asking the court to reduce his monetary bail to a $10,000 cash performance bond and
to approve Sandra Hembree and Brianna Knudson as his third-party custodians. The
court conducted a bail review hearing. At that hearing, the defense attorney explained
that Knudson’s proposal was to live with his wife, Brianna Knudson. But after Brianna
Knudson testified, the court determined that she was statutorily 	disqualified 	from

Knudson v. State – p. 3
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
serving as his third-party custodian and it accordingly declined to approve the proposed
bail modification.2
Knudson filed his next request for a bail hearing on April 22, 2024. In this
filing, he asked the court to reduce the cash performance bond to $10,000, to approve
his mother-in-law, Sandra Hembree, and a family friend, Julian Farrell, as third-party
custodians, and to allow him to have supervised contact with “minors R.H. and C.B.”
The court conducted a bail hearing on April 24, 2024. Both proposed
third-party custodians testified 	during the hearing. Farrell testified 	that under the
proposed arrangement, Knudson would be living with him. Farrell explained that the
plan was for Hembree to supervise Knudson whenever Farrell had to work. Farrell
testified that he usually works five days a week, fifty to sixty hours per week. He also
testified that, while he was at work, Hembree would come to his house to watch
Knudson, or he would drop Knudson off at Hembree’s house on his way to work and
then pick Knudson up again after work.
Farrell told the court that he lived with his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s
daughter, two-year-old C.B. He stated that he had no safety concerns about Knudson
being around C.B., but he agreed that Knudson would have no unsupervised contact
with C.B. He also testified that, while Knudson was in his custody, Knudson would
sleep on the first floor of the house, Farrell and his girlfriend would sleep in a bedroom
on the second floor, and C.B. would sleep in her own room on the second floor. In
The court found that Brianna Knudson had directly observed what happened in the
home prior to and 	during 	the time that the alleged 	sexual 	abuse 	of R.A. 	occurred.
AS 12.30.021(c)(5) (“A judicial officer may not appoint a person as a third-party custodian
if . . . the proposed custodian may be called as a witness in the prosecution of the
person[.]”).
2

Knudson v. State – p. 4
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
response to questioning from the prosecutor, Farrell stated that he would know if
Knudson were to come upstairs during the night because the stairs are creaky.
Hembree 	testified 	that 	she 	would 	supervise 	Knudson 	in 	her 	home
whenever Farrell was at work. She testified that Farrell had just started a new job, and
that she would be a sight and sound custodian for Knudson while Farrell was at work.
She explained that she and Knudson would be together in the same room, even when
she was working or taking online classes. Hembree testified that she usually takes care
of her son, three-year-old R.H., during the afternoon, so there would be times when she
would 	be supervising 	both Knudson and R.H. 3 	However, Hembree agreed 	that
Knudson would not have any unsupervised contact with R.H.
After Hembree and Farrell testified, the defense attorney argued that the
presence of “small children” in Farrell and Hembree’s homes should not affect their
ability to supervise Knudson:
Part of the request is to allow contact with two specific
minors. 	Those 	are 	obviously 	small 	children. 	It’s 	a
categorically different thing from the alleged victim in this
case who is fifteen. Additionally, they’re going to be well-
supervised by both third-party custodians. They have both
indicated their awareness of the charges . . . and that they’re
able to supervise Mr. Knudson in that context.
At 	the close 	of the hearing, 	the superior 	court declined 	to approve
Knudson’s bail proposal. In issuing its decision, the court reviewed the statutory bail
factors, making findings 	regarding each one. 4 When the court considered whether
3 	Hembree stated that R.H. is her adoptive son and also her biological grandson.
4 	AS 12.30.011(b)-(c).

Knudson v. State – p. 5
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
Knudson’s release would endanger other persons or the community,5 the court rejected
the defense attorney’s argument that Knudson was not at risk of harming C.B. or R.H.
because they were significantly younger in age than the alleged victim.
In support of its finding that C.B. and R.H. were at risk under the bail
proposal, the superior court cited to Rowan B., Sr. v. State, Department of Health and
Social Services, a child in need of aid case decided by the Alaska Supreme Court.6 The
court summarized the holding in Rowan B. as follows:
[I]n the context of children’s cases, the Alaska Supreme
Court has directed the courts to presume that any children of
any age or of any sex are at risk when there’s been sexual
abuse of another child [in the household].
Given this presumption and “the presence of children” in Farrell and Hembree’s homes,
the court held that Knudson’s bail proposal was “simply ineffective to protect the public
and the court must deny it.”
Knudson now challenges the court’s bail decision. Knudson contends that
the superior court erred by misapplying Rowan B. and by failing to approve his proposal
to be released to Hembree and Farrell as third-party custodians.
Why we remand this case for further proceedings
Article I, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution entitles a person accused
of a crime to be released on bail. This right is implemented through the provisions of
Title 12, Chapter 30 of the Alaska Statutes. Under these provisions, the superior court
5 	AS 12.30.010(c)(11) (“In determining the conditions of release under this chapter,
the court shall consider . . . the person’s danger 	to the victim, other persons, or the
community.”).
6 	Rowan B., Sr. v. State, Dept. of Health & Soc. Serv., 320 P.3d 1152 (Alaska 2014).

Knudson v. State – p. 6
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
is required to evaluate the entirety of a defendant’s bail proposal and impose the least
restrictive conditions necessary to fulfill the dual purposes of bail — i.e., to ensure the
defendant’s appearance and to protect the victim, other persons, and the community.7
Additionally, 	because Knudson is charged with a sexual felony, there is a rebuttable
presumption that there is a substantial risk that he will not appear and that he poses a
danger to the victim, other persons, or the community.8
During the bail hearing in this case, the superior court addressed each of
the statutory bail factors set out in AS 12.30.011(c), and determined that, because there
would be children in the homes of both third-party custodians, Knudson’s bail proposal
was “ineffective to protect the public.” In support of this determination, the court cited
to Rowan B. for the presumption that any children of any age or of any sex are at risk
when there’s been sexual abuse of another child in the home.
Knudson appeals this ruling.
First, Knudson notes that Rowan B. interpreted a civil child protection
statute, not a bail statute, and that the superior court’s reliance on it therefore was
misplaced. He contends that, instead of assuming that Knudson would pose a danger to
any minor child he shared a household with, the court should have conducted a case-
specific analysis of the potential risk that Knudson posed to C.B. and R.H. under the
terms of the bail proposal.
In Rowan B., the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed a trial court’s finding
that Rowan B.’s two sons, who were living in Rowan B.’s home, were at a substantial
risk of sexual abuse based on evidence that Rowan B. had sexually abused their older
7 	AS 12.30.011(b).
8 	AS 12.30.011(d)(2)(A).

Knudson v. State – p. 7
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
sister.9 The supreme court affirmed the trial court’s finding, holding that “when a trial
court finds a parent has sexually abused one child in the household, the court may
presume that other children in the household are at substantial risk of sexual abuse.”10
But in Rowan B., the supreme court was interpreting the statute which sets
out the circumstances under which a child is legally a “child in need aid.” Rowan B.
involved 	a 	presumption 	that 	other 	children 	over 	whom 	a 	person 	has 	parental
responsibility are at risk because of the parent’s sexual abuse of another child in the
household.11 In contrast, in the criminal bail context, the court is required to conduct a
case-specific analysis of a defendant’s proposed release plan and to impose the least
restrictive conditions necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance and to
protect the victim, other persons, and the public.12
Here, it is not clear from the superior court’s comments at the April 24,
2024 bail hearing how Rowan B. factored into its analysis. It is possible that the court
simply 	cited 	Rowan B. 	as support 	for its 	conclusion 	that R.H. and C.B. were
insufficiently protected by Knudson’s bail proposal. But the court did not engage in a
case-specific analysis of the bail proposal as it related to R.H. and C.B. and it therefore
appears that the court may have erroneously believed that Rowan B. required it to reject
the bail proposal. Because the basis of the court’s ruling is unclear, a remand is
warranted.
9 	Rowan B., 320 P.3d at 1157.
10 	Id. at 1158.
11 	Id.
12 	AS 12.30.011(b).

Knudson v. State – p. 8
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
Second, Knudson also argues that the court erred in rejecting his proposed
third-party custodians. But we do not interpret the superior court’s ruling as rejecting
the third-party custodians. The court made no findings regarding the suitability of the
proposed custodians. Rather, the court declined to approve Knudson’s release plan
because of the presence of the two children in the custodians’ homes.13 In other words,
the court apparently concluded that Knudson’s proposal was insufficiently protective
of C.B. and R.H.
The court did not explain, however, why it found that C.B. and R.H. would
not be protected by the proposed conditions of release or other conditions of release,
nor did 	the court provide 	any explanation 	for its 	conclusion 	that the plan 	was
“ineffective to protect the public.” It is therefore difficult to know why exactly the court
rejected the plan and whether the court would approve one or more of the third-party
custodians, or whether, for example, alternative living 	arrangements or conditions
within the homes would satisfy the court’s concerns.
Accordingly, we conclude that a remand is necessary. On remand, the
court must engage in a case-specific analysis of Knudson’s proposal in its entirety and
impose the least restrictive conditions necessary to ensure Knudson’s appearance and
to protect the victim and the public. If the court rejects Knudson’s bail request, it should
identify the parts of the release plan that it deemed insufficiently 	protective of the
public.
For these reasons, we REMAND this case to the superior court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
13 	The 	prosecutor 	recognized 	that 	the 	proposed 	third-party 	custodians 	testified
“strongly,” but also expressed concern about the children in the homes.

Knudson v. State – p. 9
File No. A-14458 – September 19, 2024
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Ryan Montgomery-Sythe,
Chief Deputy Clerk
cc: 	Judge Schwalm
Trial Court Clerk – Fairbanks
Distribution:
Email:
Bargerhuff, Kate, Office of Public Advocacy
Mason, Kathryn Elizabeth