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

Heading: Sufficiency of the Admissible Evidence.

Text: We conclude that there was sufficient admissible evidence before the grand jury so that the two inadmissible pieces of evidence, [15] together with Investigator Rice's inadmissible testimony, were not critical in the decision to return a true bill. [16] Disregarding these items of evidence, the grand jury was presented with the following facts. After Glenn Frink and Karen Check broke up, Glenn Frink continued to try to see or talk to Check. The testimony of Krizan, Hodgson and Check indicate that Frink specifically threatened anyone whom Check cared for (her boyfriends, her parents, and even Check herself) and was willing to go to some lengths to carry out these threats, including virtually breaking into Check's apartment when Hodgson was there. The detailed evidence of these specific kinds of threats dwarfs the significance of Check's general testimony that Frink was violent. Frink, by his own admission, had followed Hillier home the day before the homicide to have words with him about Check. Critically, Kipling Dam identified Frink's car idling outside Hillier's house the morning of the homicide, a time when Frink denied to the police having been near Hillier's house. Investigator Rice, who was present during the autopsy, testified that Hillier had been shot twice with a shotgun. Investigator Hogan, who was also present during the autopsy, testified that shotgun pellets about the size of double aught buck were removed from Hillier's body. Evidence showed that Frink owned a 12 gauge shotgun and that the shotgun was recently fired. Finally, Investigators Rice and Hogan testified that two expended 12 gauge double aught buck shotgun shells were removed from Frink's car, along with a box of unused 12 gauge double aught buck ammunition. This evidence, taken together, if unexplained or uncontradicted, would warrant a conviction of the defendant. Rule 6(q), Alaska R.Crim.P.