## Facts

- A domestic violence restraining order was served on Shelton Landon requiring him to stay away from A.B. and her residence.
- While the order was in effect, A.B. heard a popping sound, ran outside, saw that the tires of her cars had been slashed, and saw Landon running away from her residence.
- Landon was charged with violating a domestic restraining order and criminal mischief.
- Before trial, the State filed notice that it intended to have A.B. present throughout trial under Article I, section 24 of the Alaska Constitution, which grants crime victims the right to be present at criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present.
- Landon moved to exclude A.B. from the courtroom during other witnesses’ testimony under witness sequestration practice.
- The trial court excluded all witnesses except Landon, A.B., and the responding police officer.
- At trial, the responding officer testified that no witness had provided a description of Landon or his clothing.
- A.B. testified that she recognized Landon as he ran away because he was wearing a red coat.
- Landon was convicted and appealed, arguing the trial court should have excluded A.B. during other testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court violated Landon’s due process right to a fair trial by allowing A.B. to remain in the courtroom during other witnesses’ testimony pursuant to Alaska Constitution article I, section 24.
2. Whether allowing A.B. to hear the responding officer’s testimony violated Landon’s confrontation rights by giving A.B. an opportunity to shape her testimony (including her red-coat identification).
3. Whether Alaska Constitution article I, section 24 could be applied by the trial court without implementing legislation.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed Landon’s convictions.
- The court held that honoring A.B.’s right to be present under Alaska Constitution article I, section 24 did not, on this record, deny Landon due process.
- The court rejected the confrontation claim because Landon could cross-examine A.B. about her observations and about any effect the officer’s testimony might have had on her account.
- The court rejected the argument that article I, section 24 required legislative implementation before courts could apply it to permit a victim to remain present.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska Constitution article I, section 24 gives crime victims a right to be present at criminal proceedings where the defendant has a right to be present.
- Witness sequestration is generally a discretionary trial-management tool; it is not, by itself, a constitutional guarantee.
- A defendant’s confrontation right is satisfied when the witness testifies in court and is subject to cross-examination; claims that a witness may have shaped testimony after hearing another witness ordinarily go to credibility for the factfinder.
- A trial court may rely on the Alaska Constitution’s victims’ rights provision even in the absence of implementing legislation.
- To justify excluding a victim who has a constitutional right to attend, a defendant must show more than speculation that the victim’s presence might affect testimony.

## Conclusion

Landon v. State held that a trial court did not err by allowing the victim to remain in the courtroom during trial under Alaska Constitution article I, section 24, despite the defendant’s sequestration request and speculation that the victim could adjust her testimony after hearing another witness; because the defendant retained full cross-examination and showed no concrete prejudice, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.


Landon v. State, 1999 WL 46543 (1999)