Star page 1*1 John Lee Stapleton was convicted, after a jury trial, of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing his friend, John Fergerson Sr.¹ The two men were on a fishing trip with Stapleton's ex-girlfriend, Tracy Sitherwood. At the State's request, the superior court admitted, under Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b)(1), evidence of two prior instances of Stapleton's jealous and possessive behavior in his relationship with Sitherwood.

Stapleton now appeals his conviction, arguing that the superior court erred in admitting this evidence under Evidence Rules 404(b)(1) and 403. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we affirm the court's judgment.

In October 2018, John Stapleton traveled from Washington to Yakutat with his friend, John Fergerson Sr., to join Stapleton's ex-girlfriend, Tracy Sitherwood, and her father on a fishing trip. Stapleton and Sitherwood had dated “on-again off-again” for approximately two years before ending their romantic relationship in the month prior to the trip.

During the trip to Yakutat, Stapleton told Sitherwood that he loved her and wanted to be in a relationship with her. According to Sitherwood, she did not reciprocate these feelings. To the contrary, she told Stapleton she “was tired of this” and she just “want[ed] to be done.” She also told Stapleton that Fergerson was “going to take care of [her].”

On the second day of the trip, Stapleton began drinking early in the morning and fell asleep. While Stapleton slept, Sitherwood and Fergerson went to the boat harbor with the captain of a fishing boat to assess whether the weather conditions would permit them to go fishing that day. They ultimately determined that the weather was too bad to go out on the water. When Sitherwood and Fergerson returned to Sitherwood's cabin, Stapleton was upset that they had not woken him before going to the harbor.

Stapleton continued to drink throughout the day and into the evening. After spending the evening with some of Sitherwood's friends, Stapleton, Fergerson, and Sitherwood gathered in the cabin that Stapleton and Fergerson were sharing during the trip. Sitherwood testified that Stapleton went to the cabin's master bedroom to lie down.

According to Sitherwood's trial testimony, Sitherwood and Fergerson remained in the main room of the cabin, watching television together and talking. At one point, Fergerson told Sitherwood that she could walk around in her panties if she wanted. Although Sitherwood declined, Fergerson repeated the comment once or twice more. Sitherwood testified that she took the comment as a joke because everyone had been drinking and Fergerson liked “to joke around and tease around.” Stapleton's bedroom was adjacent to the main room, and the bedroom door was open when Fergerson made these comments. Sitherwood did not know if Stapleton was awake or asleep during this time.

At some point after Fergerson made these comments, Sitherwood left the room and then returned to find Fergerson bleeding on the ground. Fergerson did not appear to be breathing. Sitherwood called 911, and Stapleton appeared at her side and began performing CPR on Fergerson. Although first responders attempted emergency lifesaving measures, Fergerson was pronounced dead at the scene. A medical examiner later determined that Fergerson had suffered three stab wounds to the chest, one of which penetrated his heart, killing him.

Star page 2*2 In an interview with law enforcement, Stapleton explained that after they all arrived back at the cabin, Fergerson was “super pissed at [him],” and he (Stapleton) went to the kitchen to have a piece of pie and a steak he had cooked earlier. Stapleton picked up a kitchen knife to cut the pie and the steak. According to Stapleton, Fergerson was drunk and angry and “just came at” Stapleton. Stapleton stated that, with the kitchen knife in hand, he tried to push Fergerson away. He estimated that he pushed Fergerson two or three times. Stapleton stated he “had drank quite a bit” and described himself as “super trashed.” He denied being angry or having any reason to want to hurt Fergerson, whom he described as his best friend.

Stapleton was indicted on one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder.²

Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce, under Evidence Rule 404(b)(1), evidence of prior instances of jealous behavior during Stapleton's relationship with his ex-wife, Valorie Pollock, and with Sitherwood. The State sought to introduce evidence that Stapleton controlled Pollock's contact with her friends and family, that he regularly suspected her of cheating on him, that he got jealous if another man looked at her, and that after their divorce he continued to follow her. With respect to Sitherwood, the State sought to introduce evidence that Stapleton also controlled her contact with her friends and family, that he checked on her randomly to monitor her location, that he became angry in one incident when he believed a store clerk was staring at her, and that he once kicked in Sitherwood's bedroom door when she stated that she wanted her own bedroom.³

The State argued that these instances were relevant to show Stapleton's motive and intent to stab Fergerson and to rebut a claim of mistake or accident. Stapleton objected to admission of these prior instances, arguing that the evidence was not relevant for any non-propensity purpose and that the prior instances would be more prejudicial than probative.

The superior court issued a written order admitting some, but not all, of the proposed prior instances. With respect to Sitherwood, the court allowed the State to present evidence of only two prior instances of jealous behavior: that Stapleton once got angry because a store employee looked at Sitherwood for too long and that he would randomly show up to see that Sitherwood was home when she said she was. With respect to Pollock, the court likewise found two instances admissible: that Stapleton became jealous when men looked at her and that he accused her of cheating on him when she worked late. The court stated that these instances were probative of Stapleton's motive and intent, given the State's theory that he stabbed Fergerson out of jealousy. The court noted that the instances might also be admissible to prove lack of mistake or accident depending on Stapleton's theory of defense at trial. The court then weighed the probative value of the evidence against the potential for prejudice, and concluded under Evidence Rule 403 that the probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court found that the remaining instances proposed by the State were not probative of Stapleton's motive or intent to stab Fergerson.

Sitherwood testified at Stapleton's trial about the prior instances that the superior court had found admissible. In the first instance, Sitherwood testified that Stapleton became upset about how long a store employee was looking at her. According to Sitherwood, Stapleton got jealous and ushered Sitherwood out of the store. As to the second instance, Sitherwood testified that Stapleton would randomly come home from work to make sure Sitherwood was at home where she said she was. (The State ultimately decided not to call Pollock as a witness, so the jury did not hear about Stapleton's prior acts with respect to Pollock.)

Star page 3*3 The superior court ruled that Stapleton was entitled to a limiting instruction with respect to the prior instances admissible under Evidence Rule 404(b)(1). Stapleton declined the limiting instruction, explaining that he did not want to highlight the issue to the jury. At Stapleton's request, the court did not give the instruction.

Consistent with Stapleton's earlier statements to law enforcement, Stapleton testified at trial that, with the kitchen knife in hand, he had repeatedly pushed Fergerson away when Fergerson came at him aggressively. Stapleton stated that “I did not stab the man on purpose,” and he characterized Fergerson's death as a “tragedy.”

In closing argument, Stapleton argued that the stabbing had been an accident and that the evidence did not support the State's theory that Stapleton stabbed Fergerson out of jealousy.

The jury acquitted Stapleton of first-degree murder, but found him guilty of second-degree murder and a lesser-included offense of manslaughter.⁴ These convictions merged into a single conviction for second-degree murder.

Under Evidence Rule 404(b)(1), evidence of a defendant's other acts is not admissible to prove the defendant's character for committing such acts and to show that, on the occasion in question, the defendant acted in conformity with that character. But the rule allows evidence of other acts to be admitted for non-propensity purposes, including to establish motive, intent, or absence of mistake or accident.⁵ A trial court evaluating an attorney's request to introduce evidence under Rule 404(b)(1) “must identify the issues that are really being disputed — evaluating the evidence in light of the way the parties are litigating the case.”⁶

Stapleton first argues that evidence of prior instances of jealousy during his relationship with Sitherwood did not support any non-propensity purpose. But Stapleton's motive for stabbing Fergerson — and whether the stabbing was intentional — were material issues in dispute. Stapleton's defense theory at trial was that he did not intentionally harm Fergerson. Instead, he told the jury, “This was an accident.” To counter this argument, the State sought to establish that Stapleton stabbed Fergerson out of jealousy and anger.

We have reviewed the superior court's order admitting evidence of the prior acts, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Stapleton's history of other instances of jealous conduct in his relationship with Sitherwood had case-specific relevance to the issues of motive and intent, in light of the respective theories of the case argued by each party.⁷

Stapleton next claims that the superior court erred in finding that the probative value of this evidence outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.⁸ He argues that the evidence “encouraged jurors to view Stapleton negatively as a man who aims to control the movements and interactions of women he dates.”

Star page 4*4 We conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of the two narrow and specific instances of prior jealous behavior was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.⁹ We agree with the superior court that details of the prior instances — i.e., that Stapleton became jealous and upset on one occasion when he believed a store employee was staring at Sitherwood for too long and that Stapleton would randomly come home from work to make sure Sitherwood was where she said she was — were unlikely to lead the jury to decide the case on improper grounds.

The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.