Morrell v. State
1978 Alas. LEXIS 614, 575 P.2d 1200 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defense attorney has an ethical and legal obligation to turn over incriminating physical evidence to the prosecution. This duty applies even if the evidence is received from the client and is especially clear when the evidence is received from a non-client third party.
Facts:
- On May 5, 1975, Clayton Morrell offered a ride to 18-year-old Anne Elias, who was hitchhiking outside Fairbanks.
- Elias alleged that Morrell held her captive in his home for 8 days, during which he repeatedly raped her.
- Morrell contended that Elias accompanied him and stayed with him voluntarily.
- After Morrell released Elias, she reported the events to the police.
- While Morrell was in custody awaiting trial, his friend, John Wagner, stayed at Morrell's home with his permission.
- While cleaning one of Morrell's vehicles, Wagner discovered a legal pad containing a handwritten document that appeared to be a kidnapping plan.
- Wagner contacted Morrell's appointed public defender, Stephen Cline, came to the residence, and gave the legal pad to Cline.
Procedural Posture:
- Clayton Morrell was charged in the superior court with one count of kidnapping, one count of assault with intent to commit rape, and eight counts of forcible rape.
- Prior to trial, Morrell's counsel, Stephen Cline, received a legal pad containing a kidnapping plan from Morrell's friend, John Wagner.
- After consulting the Alaska Bar Association, Cline facilitated the transfer of the legal pad from Wagner to the police.
- At trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress the kidnapping plan, arguing its acquisition violated Morrell's right to effective assistance of counsel.
- The superior court denied the motion to suppress.
- A jury convicted Morrell on all counts, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus consecutive and concurrent terms.
- Morrell appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defense attorney's action of facilitating the transfer of incriminating physical evidence, received from a non-client third party, to the police violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, Justice.
No. A criminal defense attorney's action of turning over incriminating physical evidence to the prosecution does not violate the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel because an attorney has an affirmative duty to do so. The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not permit an attorney to act as a depository for physical evidence of a crime. Citing precedent like State v. Olwell, the court established that an attorney must deliver such evidence to the prosecution, although the prosecution may be prevented from mentioning the attorney as the source. This obligation is even stronger when the evidence is obtained from a non-client third party, like Wagner, who was not acting as the client's agent. Because attorney Cline had a legal and ethical duty to ensure the kidnapping plan reached the authorities to avoid committing the crime of concealing evidence, his actions were proper and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
Dissenting - Boochever, Chief Justice.
The dissent does not address the issue of effective assistance of counsel but argues that the sentence imposed was excessive. While not minimizing the atrocious nature of the crimes, the dissent contends that because Clayton Morrell released his victim without serious physical harm, a sentence of life imprisonment to run consecutively to other prison terms was excessive. The dissent concludes that the trial judge was clearly mistaken in imposing a total sentence that exceeded life imprisonment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical precedent in Alaska regarding the ethical obligations of criminal defense attorneys who come into possession of physical evidence. It clarifies that the attorney's duty as an officer of the court to not conceal evidence overrides the duty of confidentiality to a client in this context. The ruling provides a clear guideline for attorneys, distinguishing between confidential communications, which are privileged, and physical evidence, which is not. This holding significantly impacts defense strategy, as attorneys cannot act as a repository for incriminating items and may even be compelled to testify about how they obtained evidence from non-client third parties.
Unlock the full brief for Morrell v. State