Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Matthew John Flaskrud was charged with intoxication manslaughter after his motorcycle struck Derrick Hintzman’s motorcycle outside a saloon, causing injuries that led to Hintzman’s death. Surveillance footage and physical evidence indicated that Flaskrud traveled more than ten feet outside his lane, crossed approximately 133 feet of grass and gravel, and struck Hintzman as Hintzman lawfully turned left into the parking lot. Testing showed Flaskrud’s blood-alcohol concentration was 0.142, and three cannabinoids were also detected.
On the fourth day of trial, Flaskrud cut off his ankle monitor and failed to appear. The trial court found his absence voluntary and continued the trial. The jury convicted him and made an affirmative deadly-weapon finding. The court found two punishment-enhancement allegations true and assessed 60 years in prison. Flaskrud was apprehended more than a year later and sentenced, then represented himself on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Flaskrud forfeited his constitutional claim concerning exclusion of evidence that Hintzman had a 0.218 blood-alcohol concentration because his trial arguments addressed relevance, causation, and the quality of the crash investigation—not a constitutional due-process right to present a complete defense.
The court rejected Flaskrud’s ineffective-assistance claim because the record did not establish the alleged judicial conflict, disputed video, or inflammatory conduct and did not reveal counsel’s strategic reasoning or demonstrate prejudice. It also held that Flaskrud failed to preserve his disproportionate-sentence claim by objecting at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. The record showed no judicial bias arising from the trial judge’s own motorcycle accident. Finally, Flaskrud inadequately briefed and failed to preserve his challenge to continuation of the trial in his absence.
Key Takeaways
- An evidentiary objection based on relevance and causation does not preserve a distinct constitutional claim that exclusion of the evidence denied the right to present a complete defense.
- An ineffective-assistance claim generally cannot succeed on direct appeal when the record neither establishes the alleged misconduct nor explains trial counsel’s strategy or demonstrates resulting prejudice.
- Challenges to sentencing and trial in absentia may be forfeited through failure to object, and an appellate issue may also be waived when it lacks supporting argument, authority, and record citations.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores the importance of matching appellate arguments to specific objections made in the trial court. Even constitutional complaints may be forfeited when counsel presents a different legal theory below or fails to object altogether.
It also illustrates the difficulty of establishing ineffective assistance on direct appeal without a developed record and confirms that a judge’s personal experience with a superficially similar event does not establish bias absent evidence that the experience affected the judge’s neutrality.