Witness’s domestic violence utterance prompts mistrial in Strawn homicide trial

Defendant Christopher Strawn (left), defense atttorney Eve Soutiere (middle), and prosecutor Amy Paige listen to Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg during bench conference on Feb. 14, 2017.
Defendant Christopher Strawn (left), defense atttorney Eve Soutiere (middle), and prosecutor Amy Paige listen to Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg during bench conference on Feb. 14, 2017. (Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO)

A mistrial has been declared in the Christopher Strawn homicide trial.

Strawn was in Juneau Superior Court on murder and other charges related to the death of Brandon Cook at the Kodzoff Acres trailer park in October 2015.

The trial ended abruptly Tuesday afternoon after a prosecution witness took the stand. All 12 jurors were excused and sent home.

Sophia Rodriguez was a former girlfriend called by the prosecution to testify about Strawn’s ownership of a firearm. As part of an agreement with Strawn’s defense counsel, she had been advised by the prosecution and the judge about simply answering the questions that were asked and not volunteering any information.

A terrified Rodriguez broke down as soon as she sat down in the witness stand. Then, Assistant District Attorney Amy Paige started asking the first set of questions about her relationship with Strawn.

“In the time you were in a relationship with him, did you live with him?” asked Paige.
“Yes,” answered Rodriguez.
“Where did you live with him?”
“Glacier View number 35.”
“How long did you live with him?” asked Paige.
“It was off and on between those seven years,” answered Rodriguez. “And … there was domestic violence –”
“Objection, your honor!” exclaimed Soutiere.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to ask you to disregard what was just said,” said Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg. “I’m going to send you out of the room. Please don’t discuss the matter amongst yourselves or with anyone else. Don’t form any opinions or gather any information. Please go back to the jury room.”

Rodriguez’s voluntary utterance on the stand was prejudicial to Strawn. Such information about other crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts is normally inadmissible during a criminal trial.

As soon as the jury had left the room, Soutiere called for a mistrial.

Paige said the issue could be corrected with an extended instruction to the jury.

“I just wanted the record to reflect unequivocally that the state does not concur with the defense position that a mistrial is appropriate,” Paige said.

But Soutiere said it was too late.

“The state was cautioned against using this particular witness, if the state could not control this particular witness,” Soutiere. “And, we can’t unring this bell.”

Pallenberg noted that jurors likely also picked up on Rodriguez’s demeanor on the stand as well as her comment. He said it might’ve been different if it was part of a group of other bad act testimony. But, by itself, the incident would stand out.

“The last thing I want to do is retry this case,” Pallenberg said. “But I’d rather retry it in a couple months than retry it in a couple years when the Court of Appeals finishes with it. I think that would be the outcome. So, I’m granting a mistrial.”

Tiffany Johnson, who testified on Monday about witnessing Cook’s death, became upset in the courtroom as soon as Strawn’s defense called for a mistrial.

Prosecutors have already signaled their intentions to request a change of venue for the new trial in April.

Sign up for The Signal

Top Alaska stories delivered to your inbox every week

Site notifications
Update notification options
Subscribe to notifications