Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-12523 Court of Appeals No. A-12524 No. 6633
05-16-2018
EMANUAL LEE ITTA, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Michael L. Barber, Barber Legal Services, Boston, Massachusetts, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Donald Soderstrom, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court Nos. 4FA-14-810 CR & 4FA-05-3200 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Paul R. Lyle and Michael P. McConahy, Judges. Appearances: Michael L. Barber, Barber Legal Services, Boston, Massachusetts, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Donald Soderstrom, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge. Judge ALLARD.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Emanual Lee Itta was convicted, following a jury trial, of second-degree assault based on allegations that he strangled his wife. Based on this conviction, the superior court also revoked Itta's probation in a prior case.
AS 11.41.210.
Itta now appeals his conviction and the revocation of his probation, arguing that the superior court erred when it qualified the registered nurse who treated Itta's wife as an expert in strangulation. Whether a witness should be qualified as an expert is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge. The record in the current case established that the witness had been a registered nurse for fifteen years and a certified forensic nurse for five years. The witness had also received extensive forensic training, including training on strangulation, and had worked on twenty-five strangulation cases. Accordingly, we find no merit to Itta's claim that the superior court abused its discretion when it qualified this witness as an expert in strangulation.
See Dymenstein v. State, 720 P.2d 42, 45 (Alaska App. 1986).
See Carter v. State, 235 P.3d 221, 226 (Alaska App. 2010) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying a police officer as an expert on the physical signs of strangulation when the record showed that the officer had extensive experience). --------
The judgments of the superior court in both cases are therefore AFFIRMED.