 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Malloy v. State5/19/2000
[No. 1674 - May 19, 2000]
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Elaine M. Andrews, Judge.
During early November 1995, Maureen Alice Malloy restrained another woman, K.H., in a motel room in Spenard. For more than a week, Malloy inflicted many brutal physical and sexual assaults on K.H., all the while keeping her sedated with a combination of alcohol and muscle relaxants. Finally, during the early morning of November 9, Malloy drove K.H. to a remote location on the Campbell Airstrip Road; there, Malloy murdered K.H. by slashing her throat and stabbing her in the chest. A few days later, Malloy arranged for a friend to mail the murder weapon and K.H.'s belongings to another friend of Malloy's in Washington state. Malloy telephoned this friend and instructed her to burn the contents of the package when it arrived.
Based on this conduct, Malloy was convicted of kidnapping, first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence. Superior Court Judge Elaine M. Andrews sentenced Malloy to a composite term of 159 years' imprisonment, with no eligibility for discretionary parole during the first 129 years of this sentence.
Malloy now appeals her convictions, alleging that the superior court committed various procedural and evidentiary errors. For the reasons explained here, we affirm Malloy's convictions.
Malloy also appeals her sentence. She contends that her sentence is excessive. She also argues that a portion of AS 12.55.125(a), the sentencing statute for first-degree murder, is unconstitutional. We reject Malloy's argument that her sentence is excessive, but we agree that the challenged portion of AS 12.55.125(a) is unconstitutional. For the reasons explained below, we direct the superior court to delete the restriction on Malloy's eligibility for discretionary parole; she will be eligible for parole after serving 53 years (one-third of her composite term).
Issues Affecting the Validity of Malloy's Conviction
1. The ex parte hearings concerning Malloy's son, J.M.
Malloy had two children, J.M. and D.M., who were expected to be witnesses against her. J.M. ultimately testified both before the grand jury and at Malloy's trial. On the day following Malloy's arrest (December 26, 1995), the court imposed a bail condition that barred Malloy from having contact with any witness in her case - including her children. Several months later, Malloy asked the superior court to vacate this bail condition. After hearing argument on this motion, Judge Andrews reaffirmed the condition.
At about the same time that Malloy was arrested, the children were taken into emergency custody by the Division of Family and Youth Services, and the State initiated Child-in-Need-of-Aid ("CINA") proceedings with respect to both children. The superior court appointed attorney Cynthia Strout to be the children's guardian ad litem. The children made statements suggesting that Malloy had subjected them to abuse and neglect. As a result of these statements, the superior court entered an order in the CINA case that likewise prohibited Malloy from having contact with J.M. and D.M..
In mid-June 1996, thirteen-year-old J.M. ran away from foster care. On June 18th, the prosecuting attorney and J.M.'s guardian ad litem each filed affidavits requesting a material witness warrant for J.M.'s arrest. Based on these affidavits, and without notice to Malloy, Judge Andrews issued the requested warrant on June 19th.
Two days later, on June 20th, J.M. was apprehended and placed in custody at the McLaughlin Youth Center. Later that same day, Judge Andrews held an ex parte hearing attended by th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|