Court orders reconsideration of Sutton assault case

WASILLA — A man with a ruptured brain aneurysm who confronted troopers while armed with multiple weapons may get a chance at a second trial in the Palmer Superior Court.

An appellate court has remanded the conviction of William E. Palmer back to the superior court for reconsideration, according to a decision published Friday and written by appellate judge Marjorie Allard.

Palmer was arrested Sept. 5, 2009, after an armed confrontation with Alaska State Troopers. Palmer had been acting disoriented, erratic and had been unable to maintain his balance starting at the beginning of September, according to court documents. A concerned neighbor tried to hide his guns, and when Palmer discovered the guns were missing, he called 911 to report them stolen, then gave the phone to his girlfriend, Kay Anderson. Anderson told dispatchers Palmer had been shooting a gun outside the house, and she was frightened for her life. Dispatchers sent six troopers to the scene.

At Palmer’s house, he emerged carrying “what appeared to be an AK-47 rifle,” according to court documents. Troopers told Palmer to drop it, but at first he refused. Palmer then swung the rifle in the direction of the troopers before putting it down on the ground. Palmer still had a .44-caliber revolver handgun in a hip holster. When he reached down as if going to draw it, trooper Joshua Varys lunged at Palmer, grabbed the revolver, then put Palmer in a bear hug.

“Trooper Varys later testified that he believed he saved Palmer’s life by using a lesser degree of force than would have been justified under the circumstances,” Allard wrote. “Several of the other troopers testified that they, too, believed that Palmer was going to shoot them, and that they would have been justified in using lethal force against him.”

Troopers took Palmer to jail, where he continued to act erratically, according to the judgment. Concerns about Palmer’s mental health dominated his arraignment hearing, according to the judgment. Palmer’s behavior continued to deteriorate.

“He ‘defecate(ed) on the dorm eating tables,’ he ‘smear(ed) feces across the tables and benches,’ and he ‘exhibited confused speech’ and an ‘unsteady gait,’” Allard wrote.

Authorities transferred Palmer to Alaska Regional Hospital in Anchorage, where doctors discovered the source of his odd behavior: a hemorrhage as the result of a ruptured brain aneurysm.

Palmer underwent surgery, and immediately afterward was ruled unfit to stand trial, according to the judgment. Three weeks later, Palmer’s condition had improved to the point where doctors ruled he was competent to stand trial.

Prosecutors filed a motion asking the court to bar evidence of the aneurysm because defense attorneys had not said they would pursue a “mental disease or defect” defense. Defense attorneys instead argued that Palmer’s actions were involuntary because of the defect, and instead of diminished mental capacity, he suffered from an acute physical ailment.

“The defense attorney analogized Palmer’s situation to a person who has a heart attack while driving and loses control of the car,” Allard wrote. “The only difference, he argued, was that Palmer’s physical ailment ‘just happened to be in his brain.’”

Defense attorneys also declined to have Palmer undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Presiding judge Vanessa White ultimately decided that in order for Palmer to present evidence about the aneurysm’s effects on his actions, he would have to undergo the psychiatric examination by a court-appointed doctor. Defense attorneys still declined the examinations, so Palmer was prevented from admitting evidence of his aneurysm.

Prosecutors presented some evidence during trial that Palmer’s behavior during the encounter with troopers gave them the impression he was intoxicated. When Palmer’s attorney argued to present evidence of the aneurysm as a rebuttal to trooper testimony, White again barred the evidence, citing the refusal to undergo the psychiatric evaluation.

However, during the sentencing phase, the court heard additional evidence about the aneurysm, and White ruled that Palmer suffered from a “mental defect” during his encounter with troopers. White ultimately sentenced Palmer to seven years with six suspended.

Allard compared the original defense — that of a serious physical ailment — to defenses of actions undertaken in sleep, while unconscious, or while hypnotized. That contrasts with a mental defect or disease argument, which could potentially have required Palmer to undergo long-term hospitalization, treatment while incarcerated, or in need of long-term psychiatric care, Allard wrote. Even those convicted of crimes while mentally ill still bear criminal responsibility, Allard wrote.

“We note that, although there appears to be little dispute that Palmer suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm around the time of the stand-off with the troopers, the effects of the brain aneurysm on the voluntariness of his actions is not immediately obvious,” Allard wrote.

More testimony would be required to determine that, Allard said.

The Superior Court has an initial 120-day extendable deadline to retry Palmer’s case.