Williams v. State

151 P.3d 460 (Alaska App. 2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Terese told police her husband, Thomas Williams (D), had grabbed her around the neck during an argument and pushed her to the ground. She said he kept a firm grip on her throat and squeezed for several minutes and that she was very scared. Then he let go, and she got up. She was shaken and went to smoke a cigarette; her husband grabbed his bags and left. She told the police D had consumed some cough medicine and beers before the incident. The investigating officer noted that Terese was “visibly shaken” and had a scratch on her chin, a finger impression under her right ear, and a small red mark on the left of her neck. D was charged with fourth-degree assault. The conditions of his pre-trial release barred him from contacting his wife or returning to the residence they had shared. Several weeks later, D asked the court to modify his release conditions so he could have contact with his wife. The court modified the bail conditions to allow contact but emphasized that, by statute, D was still barred from the residence. Several months later, D asked the court for permission to stay in the residence to care for the house and dog while his wife and daughter were in London. The court also granted that request. On December 23, 2004, eight months after the incident, D asked the court for permission to return to the residence for Christmas. He also filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of AS 12.30.027(b). D argued that the statute infringed his fundamental right to maintain his marital relationship and violated his rights to both due process and equal protection of the laws. He also argued that the statute violated the constitutional right of victims to be treated with dignity and fairness. D's request to return to the residence was denied. The court then scheduled a hearing on D's motion challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The judge found no deprivation of equal protection or due process. D filed this petition for review.