Christopher Erik Mann v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Christopher Erik Mann,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
rial Court Case No. 4FA-23-01246CR
Court of Appeals No. A-14314
Order
Motion to Review Bail Decision
Date of Order: February 9, 2024
T
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges
This appeal concerns a pretrial bail order. Christopher Erik Mann is
awaiting trial on charges of kidnapping, coercion, third-degree fear assault, and fourth-
degree weapons misconduct.1 Mann is an active-duty Army sergeant stationed at Fort
Wainwright. The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint in this case states that
the charged incident occurred in the aftermath of an evening of drinking and socializing
with a fellow soldier, Chastin Miller, and their respective romantic partners. The
affidavit relates that the group went drinking at a bar in Fairbanks but Mann became
angry and went home early. Mann and Miller lived in adjoining units in a duplex. When
Miller and the women returned to the duplex, Mann was outside carrying firearms.
Miller told the women to go inside. Mann fired a gun into the brush near Miller, and
then held a gun to Miller’s head and made him walk around the property for some time.
Miller eventually was able to convince Mann that he was Mann’s ally and get him to
put the gun down, at which point troopers arrived and arrested Mann.
At Mann’s arraignment, the magistrate judge required Mann to post a
$50,000 performance bond and have a third-party custodian. At that hearing, Mann
1 AS 11.41.300(a)(2)(B), AS 11.41.530(a)(1), AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), and
S 11.61.210(a)(3), respectively.	A

Mann v. State – 2/9/2024
A-14314 – p. 2
stated that he earned around $50,000 per year, had a vehicle worth $4,000 or $5,000
that he still owed money on, and had about $700 in the bank.
Mann requested a bail hearing seeking to have his bail reduced to a $1,000
performance bond and to be on house arrest under the Pretrial Enforcement Division’s
electronic monitoring program. Mann asserted that he could only afford to post a $1,000
bond. Mann also stated that he had been evicted from the duplex that he shared with
Miller, and that Mann did not yet have a proposed residence where he would be living,
but asked that the court leave approval of a residence up to the Pretrial Enforcement
Division. The superior court rejected Mann’s bail proposal, stating:
The court agrees, to some degree, with [defense counsel] that
money alone isn’t going to be the thing that keeps the
community or Mr. Miller safe. However, the proposal, at this
juncture, is too loose for the Court to find that it would keep
the community and Mr. Miller safe. I think without knowing
where Mr. Mann would be living — I understand he
wouldn’t be living right next door to Mr. Miller — but
without knowing where he’s going to be living, who he
would be living with, that the Court would be reluctant to
relinquish, in a case like this, all of that approval to [the
Pretrial Enforcement Division] without knowing.
The court concluded by stating that it “really needs a little bit stronger of a proposal,
tighter proposal here,” before it would be willing to reduce the monetary amount.
In November 2023, Mann filed a request for a second bail hearing,
asserting that he could not post bail because his income had been discontinued since his
incarceration. Mann again sought to have the performance bond reduced to $1,000 and
to be placed on house arrest and electronic monitoring with the Pretrial Enforcement
Division. The superior court held a hearing and denied Mann’s renewed request, relying
on its previous analysis set forth at the prior bail hearing and noting that given the degree
of dangerousness exhibited in Mann’s behavior, a third-party custodian was necessary.

Mann v. State – 2/9/2024
A-14314 – p. 3
Mann appeals the superior court’s most recent bail order, arguing that he
should have been relieved of the third-party custodian requirement and placed on
electronic monitoring, and that the superior court should be directed to reconsider the
amount of the performance bond. But the court expressly noted at the first bail hearing
that it would not approve Mann’s bail proposal without a specific residence, and Mann
did not rectify this deficiency at the second bail hearing. In light of Mann’s proposal
and the circumstances of this case, the court’s conclusion that Mann’s proposal was
“too loose” without an identified residence was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly,
we affirm the superior court’s November 15, 2023 bail order. We note that the court
should consider releasing Mann on electronic monitoring without a third-party
custodian if Mann can present a bail proposal that addresses the superior court’s
concerns regarding public safety.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Bennett
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
Email:
Yff, Eric David, Public Defender
Plantamura, Dominic Gerard