## Facts

- Clayton Morrell was convicted of kidnapping, assault with intent to commit rape, and eight counts of forcible rape arising from an eight-day incident in May 1975 involving complainant Anne Elias.
- Elias testified Morrell abducted her, held her against her will for eight days, repeatedly raped her, and assaulted her.
- Morrell testified Elias stayed voluntarily and the sexual intercourse was consensual.
- The prosecution introduced testimony and physical evidence, including injuries consistent with Elias’s account and items recovered from Morrell’s residence.
- After Morrell’s arrest, his appointed public defender, Stephen Cline, was contacted by Morrell’s friend John Wagner, who reported finding a notepad in Morrell’s car that appeared to describe a kidnapping plan.
- Cline took possession of the notepad, sought ethics guidance, warned Wagner about concealing evidence, and arranged for Wagner to deliver the notepad to police.
- The notepad was admitted at trial; Cline testified about how he received it and how it was transferred to law enforcement.
- The trial court limited certain cross-examination of Elias, including questions about alleged drug use.
- The trial court conducted an in camera review of Elias’s journal and denied full defense access after finding no exculpatory or material impeachment content.
- Morrell received a life sentence for kidnapping, structured consecutively to concurrent terms on other counts; he appealed convictions and sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether admission of the “kidnapping plan” and defense counsel’s role in facilitating its turnover to police and testifying about it violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel or denied a fair trial.
2. Whether limits on cross-examination regarding the complainant’s alleged drug use violated the right of confrontation.
3. Whether in camera review and partial nondisclosure of the complainant’s journal violated due process, including obligations to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence.
4. Whether the life sentence for kidnapping and the overall sentencing structure were excessive.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed Morrell’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held counsel’s handling of the notepad and limited testimony about its transfer did not amount to ineffective assistance or an unfair trial.
- The court upheld the trial court’s restrictions on cross-examination as permissible control of collateral matters and not a confrontation violation.
- The court approved the in camera review procedure and found no suppression of exculpatory or material impeachment evidence.
- The court concluded the sentence was not excessive under the applicable deferential review standard.

## Legal Principles

- Defense counsel who obtains incriminating physical evidence may not conceal, destroy, or suppress it and is not entitled to retain it against lawful demands; counsel may facilitate proper surrender to law enforcement.
- Counsel’s compliance with ethical duties regarding physical evidence, and testimony limited to chain-of-custody facts, does not by itself constitute ineffective assistance absent disclosure of privileged communications beyond what is necessary.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to limit cross-examination on collateral matters; restrictions do not violate confrontation rights unless they substantially impair meaningful testing of key issues.
- A court may review sensitive materials in camera to determine whether they contain exculpatory or material impeachment evidence; nondisclosure is permissible when the material is not favorable and material to the defense.
- Appellate review of severe sentences for violent crimes is deferential; a sentence within statutory authority will be upheld absent a clear mistake in weighing sentencing goals.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Morrell’s convictions and life sentence, holding that defense counsel’s ethically motivated surrender of incriminating physical evidence and limited testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment, that limitations on collateral cross-examination were permissible, that in camera review of the complainant’s journal disclosed no material favorable evidence, and that the sentencing determination was not clearly mistaken given the prolonged and violent nature of the offenses.


Morrell v. State, 575 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1978)