Rae v. State
884 P.2d 163, 1994 WL 601811, 1994 Alas. App. LEXIS 48 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Before resorting to the extreme measure of binding and gagging a defendant during trial, a court must first provide the defendant with a hearing and determine on the record that such restraints are the least intrusive means necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, such as courtroom safety or decorum.
Facts:
- During a pre-trial calendar call, Michael L. Rae requested the dismissal of his court-appointed attorney, Gordon Goodman.
- When the judge denied the request, Rae persisted in arguing and then shoved his attorney, Goodman.
- On the first day of trial, after the court denied Rae's request to represent himself, Rae continued to interrupt the judge and made a physical move toward Goodman.
- After the judge temporarily removed the gag, Rae promised not to be violent but stated his intention to tell the jury that he believed his attorney had not zealously represented him.
- In response to Rae's stated intention to address the jury about his counsel, the judge ordered him gagged again for the remainder of the trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael L. Rae was tried before a jury in Superior Court on multiple criminal charges.
- Due to Rae's disruptive behavior in pre-trial proceedings, the trial judge ordered him to be bound and gagged for the duration of his trial.
- The jury convicted Rae on three counts as charged and on one lesser-included offense.
- Rae appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Alaska, arguing the trial court erred by ordering him restrained.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by ordering a defendant to be bound and gagged for the duration of a trial without first holding a hearing and considering less restrictive alternatives?
Opinions:
Majority - Coats, Judge
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a defendant bound and gagged without first holding a hearing and considering less restrictive alternatives. A defendant is entitled to face the jury with the appearance of a free and innocent person, and inherently prejudicial practices like shackling are permissible only as a last resort. Citing Illinois v. Allen, the court noted that other constitutionally permissible alternatives include citing the defendant for contempt or removing him from the courtroom. Citing Anthony v. State, the court emphasized that before imposing restraints, a trial judge must hold a hearing and determine that the measures are the 'least intrusive which will accomplish the desired result.' In this case, the trial court failed to hold a hearing, did not consider less restrictive measures, and the prejudice caused by the restraints was evident from the reactions of prospective jurors. This procedural failure necessitates the reversal of Rae's convictions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant procedural safeguards that must precede the physical restraint of a defendant in court. It establishes that a formal hearing and an explicit on-the-record consideration of less intrusive alternatives are mandatory prerequisites, not merely suggested practices. The ruling serves as a strong deterrent to trial courts that might hastily resort to shackling, emphasizing that the potential for jury prejudice is so high that such measures are only justifiable after all other options for managing a disruptive defendant are exhausted. This solidifies a defendant's right to maintain a presumption of innocence through their physical appearance at trial.
