Williams v. State
151 P.3d 460, 2006 Alas. App. LEXIS 203, 2006 WL 3387286 (2006)
Rule of Law:
A statute that categorically prohibits all persons charged with domestic violence from returning to the alleged victim's residence while on pre-trial release violates the right to equal protection because it infringes on the liberty interest of living with one's family without being narrowly tailored to the individual risk posed by the defendant.
Facts:
- Police responded to a report that Thomas Williams was strangling his wife, Terese, at their home following an argument where Williams had consumed alcohol and cough medicine.
- Terese told officers that Williams grabbed her throat and squeezed it for several minutes, and officers observed visible injuries including a scratch, a finger impression, and a red mark on her neck.
- Following the incident, Williams left the home and began living elsewhere while the couple maintained separate residences.
- Over the next several months, Williams and his wife reconciled, maintained regular contact, and took vacations together outside of Alaska without incident.
- Terese Williams eventually wished for her husband to return to the family home to help with maintenance and to celebrate the Christmas holiday with their daughter.
- Terese affirmatively stated to authorities that she did not feel her husband posed a threat to her safety and that maintaining two households was causing financial hardship.
Procedural Posture:
- Williams was charged with fourth-degree assault in the District Court.
- The District Court imposed pre-trial release conditions prohibiting Williams from contacting his wife or returning to their shared residence.
- The District Court modified the order to allow contact between the parties but denied Williams's motion to return to the residence based on the mandatory language of AS 12.30.027(b).
- Williams filed a motion in the District Court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
- The District Court denied the constitutional challenge, ruling that the statute only applied if a defendant was found dangerous, but then found Williams dangerous and affirmed the restriction.
- Williams filed a motion for reconsideration which the District Court denied.
- Williams filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals 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 Alaska Statute 12.30.027(b), which mandates that no person charged with a domestic violence crime may return to the residence of the alleged victim while on pre-trial release, violate the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution by failing to allow for an individualized assessment of danger?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Coats
Yes, the mandatory residence restriction violates the equal protection clause because it is impermissibly overinclusive and burdens the liberty interests of individuals who pose no danger to the victim. The court reasoned that while the state has a compelling interest in preventing domestic violence, individuals on pre-trial release retain an important liberty interest in choosing their family living arrangements. The challenged statute sweeps too broadly by treating all domestic violence defendants—regardless of the specific crime or actual risk level—as equally dangerous. The court determined that less restrictive alternatives exist, such as judicial discretion to impose residence restrictions based on individualized hearings, which would achieve the state's safety goals without unnecessary infringement on constitutional rights. Therefore, the blanket statutory ban fails the close scrutiny required under Alaska's equal protection analysis.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it strikes down a 'one-size-fits-all' legislative approach to domestic violence pre-trial release conditions. It reaffirms the constitutional importance of the right to live with one's family, even for those charged with crimes, and establishes that the government cannot strip away this right based solely on a charge without an individualized finding of necessity. The ruling mandates that courts must retain the discretion to assess danger on a case-by-case basis rather than enforcing mandatory, blanket prohibitions. This protects defendants who pose no actual threat from undue burden while still allowing courts to restrict truly dangerous individuals.
