Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
State of Alaska v. Ernest William Butler
Case Number: 3AN-19-04151-CR
Judge: Thomas A. Matthews
Court: Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage Borough, Alaska
Plaintiff's Attorney: Anchorage Borough, Alaska District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Anchorage, Alaska criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with "one count of first-degree burglary, one count of second-degree assault, and one count of fifthdegree criminal mischief after he assaulted Mary Ahnangnatoguk..."
Ernest William Butler was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of first-degree burglary, one count of second-degree assault, and one count of fifthdegree criminal mischief after he assaulted Mary Ahnangnatoguk.[1] Butler and Ahnangnatoguk had been involved in a romantic relationship for years, and they had two children together. At the time of the events in this case, Butler and Ahnangnatoguk had broken up, but Butler would spend a few nights a week at her apartment, and he told Ahnangnatoguk that he wanted to get back together.
Prior to trial, the State sought permission to introduce evidence of ten prior acts of domestic violence committed by Butler - eight against Ahnangnatoguk and two against a former girlfriend.[5] In a written order, the superior court evaluated and weighed the Bingaman factors and found that six prior incidents against Ahnangnatoguk, which resulted in convictions, were admissible under Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b)(4)[6] and that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial.[7] The court therefore granted the State's request to introduce this evidence to show Butler's propensity to commit acts of domestic violence against Ahnangnatoguk.[8] However, the court excluded evidence of the remaining four incidents - the other two incidents involving Ahnangnatoguk that did not result in convictions and the two incidents involving Butler's former girlfriend, which the court found were remote in time and cumulative.[9]
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the court's ruling admitting evidence of the six prior incidents under Evidence Rule 404(b)(4) was not an abuse of discretion.[10]...
Butler v. State, A-13951 (Alaska App. Nov 13, 2024)
Outcome: Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: