Opinion ID: 1187510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Carson-Trudeau Incident.

Text: The testimony of Belinda Carson was admitted over objection of the defendant. We summarize the incident with Carson and her testimony. Two days before the trial, Belinda Carson, a sixteen-year-old admitted prostitute, met Frink in a bar. The two arranged to go to her motel room. Upon arriving at the room, Frink found Carson's boyfriend hidden in the closet. Frink believed that he was being set up to be rolled and left the room. He remained at the motel and observed Carson leave the motel in a cab. Frink called the police, and Vice Officer Trudeau came to the motel. Frink was apparently concerned that someone else would be rolled that night if Carson was not apprehended. Frink rode with Officer Trudeau back downtown and went into bars in an effort to locate and apprehend Carson. Carson was apprehended and turned over to the juvenile authorities. Her boyfriend was never located. Carson was allowed to testify to these events, including that she had telephoned her boyfriend and arranged that he be present at the motel room because Frink told her, [Y]ou better not fuck with me because I'm going to court for first degree murder. Carson also testified that when Frink found her boyfriend, Frink left the room. He was upset, and he told me that I had made a mistake and he left. ..... ... [H]e was mentioning things about, I had better leave town. He was pretty mad. Carson was also asked what she had said to Frink about the murder trial on their way to the motel room: I asked him what happened, and if he'd  I asked him  okay, I asked how he was involved in it, and he said that a girlfriend of his  [a boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend] was shot and I asked him if he did it and  and he said  asked me what  what I thought, and then he told me he was going to beat the case. Officer Trudeau testified to these events and stated that while riding with Frink, Frink brought up the topic of his upcoming trial and said, I'm the guy that blew the guy in 2 on Government Hill. Trudeau also testified that Frink, in explaining the facts of the homicide, said: [Y]ou don't see me shedding any tears do you? Frink moved below for a protective order against Carson's testimony. The trial judge refused, stating: Two observations, one is that this [the contact between Officer Trudeau and Frink] was not engineered in any way by the police, and the jury is entitled to know that. The second is that the  she  he did make some statements to Miss Carson which were related to the facts on trial in this case, and in addition the jury is entitled to  in order for  or the state is entitled to present the entire circumstances in order to show the credibility of Officer Trudeau. We find the prejudicial impact of Carson's testimony outweighed its probative value and therefore its admission was an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Poulin v. Zartman, 542 P.2d 251, 260 (Alaska 1975) (articulating the standard). The prejudicial impact of Carson's testimony was its suggestion that the defendant was a violent man who had relations with a young prostitute. The threat made against Carson had no probative value; it was not relevant to Frink's motive to kill Hillier because Carson was not in the same class of persons as Hillier. Furthermore, we have grave doubts that Frink's statement to Carson that he was going to beat the case was relevant. The theory of relevancy would be that someone who said they were going to beat the case was more likely to have committed the offense than someone who did not utter the words. Nevertheless, the prejudicial impact of Carson's testimony clearly outweighs whatever marginal relevance Frink's statement may have had. Although admission of the evidence was error, we find it harmless error. Alaska R.Crim.P. 47(a). The standard for harmless error is whether we can fairly say that the [inadmissible] evidence did not appreciably affect the jury's verdict. Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 632 (Alaska 1969). [34] The improper significance that the jury attached to Carson's testimony was probably slight. The court specifically instructed the jury that they could not consider the threats related by Carson as tending to show a propensity [of Frink] toward violence or toward making threats, and the jury had before it much admissible evidence about threats Frink had made to other persons. We think that Frink's statement to Officer Trudeau was highly probative and correctly admitted. We agree with the trial court that there was need of some background details to support the credibility of Trudeau's testimony and to explain how Frink came in contact with Trudeau. [35] But Carson's testimony was not necessary for that. Trudeau could have testified that Frink reported a crime, unrelated to the homicide, and that they were looking for the perpetrator of the crime. AFFIRMED.