Nathaniel Edwin Erfurth v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Nathaniel Edwin Erfurth,
Petitioner,
v.
State of Alaska,
Respondent.
Trial Court Case No. 3KN-23-00494CR
Court of Appeals No. A-14444
Order
Petition for Review
ate of Order: September 19, 2024	D
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges
Nathaniel Edwin Erfurth petitions for review of the superior court’s June
11, 2014 bail order in this case. For the reasons explained in this order, we GRANT
Erfurth’s petition and REMAND this case to the superior court for further consideration
of Erfurth’s bail proposal.
Background facts and proceedings
On May 20, 2023, Erfurth was charged with one count of second-degree
sexual abuse of a minor and one count of fourth-degree sexual abuse of a minor.1 The
affidavit in support of the complaint alleged that Erfurth, a former teacher at Soldotna
Prep School and Soldotna High School, had engaged in a sexual relationship over an
extended period of time with J.S., who was seventeen years old and a student at
Soldotna High School at the time the sexual relationship began in October 2017.
According to the affidavit, J.S. had been a ninth-grade student in one of
Erfurth’s classes at Soldotna Prep; they subsequently developed a personal relationship
in which J.S. thought of Erfurth as a mentor and a “father figure.” Erfurth later taught
1 AS 11.41.436(a)(6) and AS 11.41.440(a)(2), respectively.

Erfurth v. State – p. 2
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
at Soldotna High School while J.S. was a student there. J.S reported that Erfurth began
to engage in acts of sexual contact and sexual penetration with her when J.S. was in
eleventh grade. According to the affidavit, Erfurth and J.S. continued to engage in
sexual intercourse until late 2019. The relationship was reported to law enforcement in
2023.
At Erfurth’s first court appearance on May 21, 2023, the court set bail at
a $50,000 cash performance bond and a $100,000 cash appearance bond secured by a
10% posting. The court also required that Erfurth be in the custody of a court-approved
third-party custodian. The court precluded Erfurth from having any contact with J.S.
and with minors under the age of 18, with the exception of his biological children.
Several days later, Erfurth requested a bail review hearing. Erfurth
requested that the appearance bond of $100,000 cash secured by a 10% posting be
reduced to $50,000 secured by a 10% posting and that the $50,000 cash performance
bond be reduced to $20,000. Erfurth also proposed his mother-in-law, Pam Malone, as
a third-party custodian and the addition of GPS electronic monitoring through Alaska
Pretrial Services (APS). Erfurth subsequently filed a notice proposing his father, Edwin
Erfurth, as a second third-party custodian in addition to Malone.
On June 8, 2023, the court held a bail hearing. At this hearing, Malone
and Edwin each testified regarding their ability to serve as Erfurth’s third-party
custodian. Dennis Johnson also testified about the 24-hour GPS monitoring services
that APS would provide, if approved. Johnson explained that geographic exclusion
zones would be set and that any violation of an exclusion zone would result in
immediate notification to APS, with subsequent notification to law enforcement.
The State argued that Erfurth’s bail should not be modified because
Erfurth’s proposed modifications did not adequately protect J.S. or the public. The State
also argued that Erfurth was a substantial flight risk.

Erfurth v. State – p. 3
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
The court found that the proposed third-party custodians were strong
custodians who would fulfill their obligations. The court also confirmed that Erfurth
had no prior criminal history. The court found, however, that Erfurth was a substantial
flight risk because of the nature of the allegations and the strength of the case, as set out
in the affidavit. The court concluded that while bail as previously set was appropriate,
some reduction in bail was warranted based on Erfurth’s proposal to have GPS
monitoring through APS, provided that a condition was added restricting Erfurth to
house arrest.
The court modified Erfurth’s bail by reducing the $50,000 cash
performance bond to $25,000, approving Malone and Edwin to be third-party
custodians, and requiring Erfurth to be released on house arrest enforced through GPS
electronic monitoring with APS. (The court left the appearance bond unchanged.) The
court continued the condition precluding contact with J.S. and precluded unsupervised
contact with any minor children, with the exception of Erfurth’s own children. The court
also directed the third-party custodians to monitor Erfurth’s electronic communications
to ensure there was no contact of this kind.
On June 28, 2023, a grand jury indicted Erfurth on forty-two counts of
second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, seven counts of fourth-degree sexual abuse of
a minor, six counts of unlawful exploitation of a minor, and six counts of possession of
child pornography.2 The counts relate to the time period in 2017 and 2018 when J.S.
was seventeen years old, and the sexual abuse of a minor counts allege that, at the time,
Erfurth was in a position of authority in relation to J.S.
In early November 2023, Erfurth filed an application for a subsequent
bail review hearing. In the application, and at the hearing on November 20, 2023,
2 AS 11.41.436(a)(6), AS 11.41.440(a)(2), AS 11.41.455, and AS 11.61.127,
respectively.

Erfurth v. State – p. 4
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
Erfurth’s attorney asked that the court remove the third-party custodian requirement but
retain the requirement that Erfurth be confined to house arrest enforced through
electronic monitoring by APS. The attorney advised the court that Pam Malone, one of
Erfurth’s third-party custodians, needed to leave the state because her mother would be
entering hospice care. The attorney asserted that Erfurth had fully complied with his
bail conditions in the five months since his release, and argued that electronic
monitoring coupled with house arrest would provide sufficient protection to the public.
The State opposed Erfurth’s request, arguing that Erfurth presented an
increased flight risk since his last bail review hearing because he had been indicted on
over 60 charges. The State argued that a third-party custodian provided stronger
protection to J.S. and to the community than a release plan with electronic monitoring
alone.
On behalf of APS, Dennis Johnson confirmed that APS had experienced
“zero issues” with Erfurth, whom he characterized as being “hypersensitive to the
requirements of his conditions.”
The court acknowledged that Erfurth appeared to have followed his
conditions for the previous five months. But the court noted that, since the first bail
review hearing, Erfurth had been indicted on dozens more charges. The court also noted
that at the prior bail hearing, the court (with a different judge presiding) had imposed a
condition that Erfurth’s third-party custodians monitor all of his electronic
communications to ensure that there was no contact with J.S. or minors, and the court
expressed concern that this condition could not be complied with if the third-party
custodian requirement were removed. The court declined to remove the third-party
custodians and denied Erfurth’s bail request.
In January 2024, Erfurth filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing
that the State had presented false evidence and failed to present exculpatory evidence
to the grand jury. In particular, Erfurth argued that the investigating trooper

Erfurth v. State – p. 5
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
misrepresented the contents of conversations between Erfurth and J.S. that the State had
obtained through Glass warrant recordings, improperly suggesting (according to
defense counsel) that Erfurth had confessed to the alleged conduct. Erfurth faulted the
State for failing to ask J.S. at the grand jury about this alleged admission and for failing
to present additional portions of the audio recordings that contained multiple denials by
Erfurth. Erfurth also argued that the court should dismiss the child pornography charges
since no evidence of child pornography was found on either his or J.S.’s electronic
devices and this fact was not conveyed to the grand jury.
The State opposed Erfurth’s motion, arguing that its presentation to the
grand jury was reasonably complete and fair. The State asserted that the grand jury was
fully informed as to the context surrounding the four recorded conversations and the
fact that Erfurth had not made any inculpatory statements during the first three
conversations. The State noted that portions of the fourth conversation in which Erfurth
was alleged to have made inculpatory statements were directly played for the grand
jury. The State also argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the child
pornography charges.
On April 12, 2024, the court held an evidentiary hearing on Erfurth’s
motion to dismiss the indictment. At the hearing, Erfurth submitted all of the audio
recordings that had been presented to the grand jury, in addition to other portions of the
Glass warrant recordings. The State and Erfurth agreed that some of the audio
recordings are of poor quality and very difficult to understand, including one disputed
portion in particular that the State alleges contains an inculpatory statement by Erfurth.3
3 The statement J.S. made to precipitate Erfurth’s response is difficult to hear, and
Erfurth’s attorney and the State have different interpretations of this statement, which in
turn affects the meaning of Erfurth’s response. Erfurth testified at the hearing as to his
recollection of what J.S. said to precipitate his response, but the court refused to allow
Erfurth to call J.S. to question her about the content of her statement.

Erfurth v. State – p. 6
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
The parties subsequently filed written closing arguments, and the court took the motion
under advisement.
In May 2024, Erfurth filed an application for a third bail review hearing.
Erfurth’s attorney requested that the court delete both the third-party custodian
requirement and the house arrest requirement, citing the recent evidentiary hearing that
he claimed exposed weaknesses in the State’s case. The State opposed this request,
arguing that Erfurth had not presented any new information and that Erfurth’s request
amounted to an untimely motion for reconsideration of the court’s November 2023 bail
decision. (As we discuss below, Erfurth, who was out of custody, was not required to
present “new information” in order to obtain a bail hearing.4) In reply, Erfurth’s attorney
reiterated his view that the evidentiary hearing had exposed additional weaknesses in
the State’s case and cited additional family issues that would require the attention of
Erfurth’s third-party custodians out of state.
On June 11, 2024, the court held a bail hearing. Erfurth’s attorney argued
that Erfurth had been “meticulous” in the year he had been out on bail, with no
violations. He advised the court that Erfurth’s mother-in-law was now out of state
attending to her mother, and that Erfurth’s wife would soon need to leave state to attend
her grandmother’s funeral. He further advised that Erfurth’s father (his second third-
party custodian) would be helping care for Erfurth’s children (ages four and seven), and
would be unable to leave the house to do shopping or transport the children due to
Erfurth’s house arrest.5
4 See AS 12.30.006(d); Hanhaz v. State, 2008 WL 11522214, at *1 (Alaska App. Jan.
22, 2008) (unpublished bail order).
5 Erfurth also noted that his father would likely need to leave state to attend to his
own elderly parents at some point in the future.

Erfurth v. State – p. 7
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
Erfurth therefore requested relief from the third-party custodian
requirement and from house arrest, although he proposed continuing with GPS
monitoring with geographic restrictions. He invited the court to set time periods when
he would be required to be at home and proposed that he be required to get pre-approval
from APS for any trips outside the home.
The State opposed Erfurth’s request. The State reiterated its view that
Erfurth had not presented any new information — and that family issues requiring out-
of-state travel by a third-party custodian did not justify a reduction in bail. The State
maintained that bail was appropriately set and that the court should not remove both the
third-party custodian and house arrest requirements.
The court denied Erfurth’s request. The court noted that Erfurth’s
arguments primarily rested on the strength of the State’s case, which was the subject of
Erfurth’s pending motion to dismiss the indictment. But the court stated that it was “not
in a position . . . to say one way or the other or comment as to the strength of the
evidence” until it ruled on the motion to dismiss the indictment.
The court acknowledged that it had learned more about the case since the
last bail hearing and that it had received an update at this bail hearing on the family
medical issues facing the third-party custodians. But the court largely rejected the
notion that Erfurth had presented new or additional information not already known at
the last hearing. The court concluded that, while it was appropriate to hold the hearing,
there was no reason to modify the bail conditions at that time and reiterated that it was
not in a position to modify bail or rule on the strength of the evidence until it resolved
Erfurth’s pending motion to dismiss. However, the court suggested that, after it ruled
on Erfurth’s motion to dismiss the indictment, Erfurth “could perhaps file another bail
request . . . depending on how the court decides.”

Erfurth v. State – p. 8
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
Erfurth then filed a petition seeking review in this Court of the superior
court’s order denying his most recent request to modify his bail conditions.6 The State
filed an opposition. Since then, the superior court has denied Erfurth’s motion to dismiss
the indictment as to most of the counts, but granted the motion as to the child
pornography charges, finding that the State presented insufficient evidence to the grand
jury to support these charges.
Why we remand for further consideration
Article I, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution entitles criminal
defendants to pretrial release on bail.7 Both the United States and Alaska Constitutions
prohibit the imposition of “excessive” bail.8 Excessive bail is that which goes beyond
the amount actually necessary to fulfill the purposes of bail — i.e., to reasonably assure
the defendant’s appearance and the safety of the community.9
Consistent with the right to bail, AS 12.30.011(b) requires a court to
“impose the least restrictive condition or conditions that will reasonably ensure the
[defendant’s] appearance and protect the victim, other persons, and the community.”
Additionally, in this case, because Erfurth is charged with a sexual felony, there is a
rebuttable statutory presumption that there is “a substantial risk” that he will not appear
and that he poses a danger to other persons and the community.10
6 See Isadore v. State, 378 P.3d 406, 407 (Alaska App. 2016) (holding that an out of-
custody defendant is entitled to petition for review of a trial court’s bail decision).
7 See Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 51 (Alaska 1971).
8 United States Const. amend. VIII; Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.
9 Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
10 AS 12.30.011(d)(2)(A).

Erfurth v. State – p. 9
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
On petition, Erfurth argues that the superior court failed to explain why
the bail conditions imposed were the least restrictive necessary to reasonably ensure
Erfurth’s appearance and to protect J.S. and the community. Erfurth also argues that the
superior court improperly denied his proposed bail modification without making any
finding about the strength of the evidence.
The State argues that the court did not err in rejecting Erfurth’s bail
proposal because little had changed since November 2023, when the court held
Erfurth’s second bail hearing and denied a similar request. The State recognizes that the
court deferred making a finding on the strength of the case, but argues that such deferral
was appropriate given the pending motion to dismiss the indictment.
Having reviewed the record, we are uncertain of the precise contours of
the court’s most recent bail ruling — in particular, whether the court denied Erfurth’s
most recent bail proposal on the merits. It is possible to interpret the court as granting
the hearing simply to discuss with the parties whether there was new information —
and ultimately concluding that there was no new information and deferring ruling on
the bail request until after it decided Erfurth’s motion to dismiss the indictment. It is
also possible to interpret the court as denying the request on the merits without
considering the strength of the evidence, as Erfurth contends.
To the extent the court and the parties were operating under the
assumption that “new information” was required as a prerequisite to holding a bail
hearing, we note that the provision precluding defendants from requesting a second bail
hearing absent “new information” is limited to those who “remain in custody.” 11
Erfurth is out of custody, so he is not subject to this provision.12 And in any event, we
11 AS 12.30.006(d).
12 See Hanhaz v. State, 2008 WL 11522214, at *1 (Alaska App. Jan. 22, 2008)
(unpublished bail order) (holding, under former bail statute with substantially similar

Erfurth v. State – p. 10
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
have recognized that, in light of the right to pretrial release set out in the Alaska
Constitution, courts should “broadly construe” what qualifies as “new information” for
purposes of obtaining a subsequent bail hearing.13 Here, Erfurth informed the court that
one of his third-party custodians was unavailable, and he sought a relaxation of his bail
conditions in part so that he could transport his children outside the home when his wife
was out of state.
To the extent the court denied Erfurth’s request on the merits, we agree
with Erfurth that it is unclear why the court believes that both a 24-hour third-party
custodian condition and a 24-hour house arrest condition are necessary to reasonably
ensure the protection of J.S. and the public. Both are monitoring conditions that are
designed to safeguard performance; the court has also imposed a $25,000 cash
performance bond to meet the same goal. The court found that the third-party custodians
were “strong third-party custodians” who would fulfill their duties. The court also
imposed a condition precluding Erfurth from contacting J.S. and minors (other than his
own children). There appears to be no dispute that Erfurth — who has no prior
convictions — has not contacted J.S. and has complied with his bail conditions for over
a year.
We note that the allegations in this case are that Erfurth had an improper
sexual relationship with a seventeen-year-old with whom he was in a position of
authority. Erfurth is no longer in a position of authority and is currently precluded from
any contact with minors other than his own children.
We also agree with Erfurth that, when a trial court conducts a bail hearing,
it must consider the bail factors set out in AS 12.30.011(c) in light of the dual purposes
language, that “the requirement of changed circumstances applies only to defendants who
remain in custody even after the court has reviewed their bail conditions”).
13 See Karr v. State, 459 P.3d 1183, 1185 (Alaska App. 2020).

Erfurth v. State – p. 11
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
of bail. These factors include the “nature and circumstances of the offense charged” and
“the weight of the evidence against the person.”14 A court cannot defer consideration
of the strength of the evidence when evaluating bail.
As we noted, it is not clear if the superior court denied Erfurth’s proposal
on the merits. The court suggested that Erfurth could file another bail request after it
ruled on Erfurth’s motion to dismiss the indictment. We recognize that the court has
now denied Erfurth’s motion as to most of the charges. But in light of the court’s
decision to decline to make findings of the strength of the evidence until it could further
consider the case, and in light of the dismissal of some of the charges and the guidance
provided here, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand this case for reconsideration.
We reiterate that the key question when setting bail conditions is whether
the conditions as a whole are the least restrictive necessary to reasonably ensure the
defendant’s appearance and the protection of the alleged victim, other persons, and the
community.15 Upon consideration of a future bail request, the court should explain why
a less restrictive set of bail conditions — for example, with only one form of monitoring
or with preapproved release times from house arrest — would fail to meet these goals.
Conclusion
We GRANT Erfurth’s petition for review and REMAND this case to the
superior court for reconsideration of Erfurth’s bail proposal in light of the guidance
provided here.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
14 AS 12.30.011(c)(1)-(2).
15 AS 12.30.011(b).

Erfurth v. State – p. 12
File No. A-14444 – 9/19/2024
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Lawson
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
Email:
Derleth, Eric
Leaders, Scot Henry
Matucheski, Julie Louise