## Facts

- Michael T. Dunkin, after drinking with companions, drove a jeep bearing the words “Boofer hunter,” using a derogatory term for Black people.
- The jeep became stuck near Palmer, Alaska, and Julius Marshall, a Black mechanic and tow operator, was called to assist.
- Before the shooting, Dunkin stated to a bystander that he was going to “waste the old spook.”
- After Marshall towed the jeep, Dunkin shot Marshall three times in the head and neck at close range.
- As he left, Dunkin told a companion not to worry because it was “just a nigger … just a boofer.”
- At trial, Dunkin claimed the shooting was accidental and that intoxication contributed; the State argued an unprovoked, racially motivated killing.
- Evidence also included post-crime behavior: attempts to fabricate an alibi, instructions to others to lie, and later apprehension with the murder weapon.
- Dunkin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 85 years, with a judicial recommendation of 50 years before parole eligibility.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor’s race-focused voir dire questioning and closing remark about the victim’s “right that justice be done” constituted plain error requiring reversal absent a timely objection or request for a curative instruction.
2. Whether omissions in the trial record (primarily unrecorded bench conferences) denied Dunkin a meaningful right to appeal and required reversal or a new trial.
3. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the incomplete record and related trial or appellate actions, and whether Dunkin showed resulting prejudice.
4. Whether the 85-year sentence and the recommendation of 50 years of parole ineligibility were erroneous or excessive.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the challenged voir dire and closing argument did not amount to plain error in context and did not seriously prejudice the right to a fair trial.
- The court held the record, though imperfect, was sufficient for appellate review because the missing material was limited and Dunkin identified no concrete, reviewable issue lost due to the omissions.
- The court rejected ineffective-assistance claims for lack of a specific showing of prejudice.
- The court upheld the 85-year term and the 50-year parole recommendation as within sentencing discretion, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and noting the parole recommendation was nonbinding.

## Legal Principles

- Plain-error review applies when alleged prosecutorial impropriety was not preserved by objection; reversal requires a showing of serious prejudice affecting trial fairness.
- Voir dire may address potential bias on issues expected to be central at trial, including race, when used to screen for juror impartiality rather than to inflame prejudice.
- A missing or incomplete transcript warrants relief only if the appellant shows the omissions materially hinder meaningful appellate review.
- Ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the errors; speculative prejudice is insufficient.
- Sentencing review defers to the trial court absent a clear mistake, and a judicial parole-ineligibility recommendation does not bind the parole authority.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Dunkin’s first-degree murder conviction and lengthy sentence, concluding that the prosecutor’s references to race were aimed at ensuring juror impartiality, the limited transcript gaps did not impede appellate review, ineffective-assistance claims failed for lack of demonstrated prejudice, and the sentence and nonbinding parole recommendation were justified by the offense’s severity and circumstances.


Dunkin v. State, 818 P.2d 1159 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991)