Murder charge stands

ANCHORAGE — A Palmer man convicted of murder in 2005 has had his appeal rejected.

Eugene Gordon, now 46, kicked down the front door at Jesus Manglona’s house on Dec. 14, 2004, and found Manglona in bed with Laurie Welsh. Gordon had been in a relationship with Welsh that ended three months prior. He shot Manglona, which woke Welsh, who then struggled with him over the gun but was not shot.

Gordon went to trial a year later and was convicted. Superior Court Judge Eric Smith sentenced him in March of 2006 to 75 years in prison.

On appeal, Gordon argued the prosecution presented improper evidence. When a grand jury was deciding whether to formally charge him with the crimes, jurors heard evidence that Gordon had been in jail before. Specifically, they were informed he told Welsh he didn’t want to go back to jail.

“Evidence of Gordon’s prior prison service would not be admissible to show that he was a person of bad character likely to commit murder,” appellate court judge Joel Bolger wrote in the decision that slapped down Gordon’s appeal. That decision was issued Wednesday.

In this case, he wrote, the evidence was used to show Gordon felt guilty about shooting Manglona. Bolger wrote he agrees with Judge Smith’s ruling that the evidence was properly admitted and that the prosecutor was right not to explain to the jury what crime had landed Gordon in jail prior to the murder.

Another piece of evidence to which Gordon objected was that he had invoked his right to remain silent when trooper investigators tried to interview him. That evidence, Bolger wrote, is definitely not allowed. But, he said, the calculation that judges have to make is whether Gordon would have been convicted if that evidence had not been admitted.

“It is unlikely that the grand jury understood these references to be an indication that Gordon was admitting guilt,” Bolger wrote. “Moreover, there was persuasive admissible evidence supporting the grand jury’s decision.”

As examples, Bolger pointed to Welsh’s testimony about that night and to Gordon’s statements to her before and after they struggled over the gun.

Gordon’s third point of appeal was that a 75-year sentence was excessive.

Bolger wrote that in appeals of excessive sentences, it is up to the appellant to show there is some factor that makes his crime less serious than other similar crimes. He pointed out that in a similar case from 1994, the appeals court upheld a 99-year sentence for a man who shot eight rounds into a pickup, killing his ex-girlfriend but not her new boyfriend.

Finally, Gordon argued Smith didn’t take his potential for rehabilitation into account, noting that the underlying causes of his behavior were “treatable emotional disorders.”

“A sentencing judge is not required to give the goal of rehabilitation the highest priority in every case,” Bolger wrote.

Smith was being reasonable, Bolger wrote, when he instead emphasized isolating Gordon to protect the public, condemning his actions and using Gordon’s case as a warning to others who would turn to extreme violence in a jealous rage.

Contact Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.