## Facts

- Arthur Haakanson, a 55-year-old resident of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island, was accused of sexual abuse involving three minor girls.
- The State alleged multiple acts including sexual contact and intercourse over a period of years, and obtained a fourteen-count indictment.
- The indictment charged first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, first-degree sexual assault (under a former statute), and second-degree sexual abuse of a minor.
- At trial, the judge dismissed three counts involving one complainant (S.A.C.) for insufficient evidence.
- The jury convicted Haakanson on ten of the remaining eleven counts.
- Haakanson sought to introduce results of a polygraph examination he took; the trial court excluded the results.
- The prosecution introduced testimony describing a generalized “sex offender profile” (common traits or behaviors said to be associated with child sexual abusers), including facially innocent conduct such as giving candy to children.
- The prosecution also introduced physical items (including bags of candy found in Haakanson’s home) to argue that he fit the profile.
- The prosecution presented evidence of alleged sexual misconduct involving children not named in the indictment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the defendant’s polygraph examination results for failure to show scientific reliability.
2. Whether admitting “sex offender profile” testimony and related physical evidence to show the defendant fit the profile was improper and prejudicial.
3. Whether admitting evidence of alleged sexual misconduct involving uncharged children constituted impermissible character or propensity evidence.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of Haakanson’s polygraph results because he did not make the required showing of reliability.
- The court held that “sex offender profile” testimony used to link general offender traits to the defendant was improper character evidence.
- The court concluded the profile evidence, reinforced by physical items offered to show “fit,” was highly prejudicial and not harmless in a credibility-driven trial.
- The court determined that evidence of alleged misconduct with uncharged children improperly encouraged a verdict based on character and compounded the prejudice.
- The convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Polygraph evidence is inadmissible absent a sufficient foundational showing that the test method and its administration are reliable under accepted scientific standards.
- Testimony describing a generalized “sex offender profile,” offered to show that a defendant matches the profile and therefore likely committed the charged acts, is improper character/propensity evidence.
- Seemingly innocent behavior cannot be repackaged as profile “indicators” to invite an inference of guilt based on generalized traits rather than proof of the specific charged conduct.
- Evidence of other alleged sexual misconduct with victims not named in the charges must be closely limited; when used to suggest bad character or propensity, it risks denying a fair trial, particularly when combined with other improper character proof.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of the defendant’s polygraph results for lack of a reliability foundation, but reversed and remanded because the prosecution’s use of sex-offender profile testimony, corroborative profile-matching items, and uncharged-misconduct evidence operated as improper character proof that denied the defendant a fair trial.


Haakanson v. State, 760 P.2d 1030 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988)