Attorneys are expected to give their closing arguments Monday for a case involving a fatal 2019 car crash on Unalaska’s Mount Ballyhoo. However, they will first have to hear whether or not the presiding judge believes there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
Over the past week and a half, state prosecutors and defense attorneys have been interviewing witnesses and presenting evidence to a group of Anchorage jurors who will ultimately decide whether or not 24-year-old Dustin Ruckman is guilty of felony charges for his involvement in the incident.
In May of 2019, when Ruckman was 18 years old, he drove his truck up Unalaska’s Mount Ballyhoo with his girlfriend at the time and another friend. The truck eventually fell down the Ulakta Head Cliff side of the mountain with the two girls inside. Karly McDonald, 16, and Kiara Rentaria Haist, 18, were ejected from the truck and died in the fall. Ruckman sustained some minor injuries and told police that he was thrown from the truck.
Ruckman was originally indicted in June of 2020 for several charges, including two counts of manslaughter, two counts of criminally negligent homicide, and one count of reckless driving. Those were reduced last year, after the defense successfully argued in a motion that testimony from the state’s expert exceeded the scope of his expertise — the state withdrew that expert. The case returned to the grand jury and Ruckman was reindicted. He now faces two counts of criminally negligent homicide.
The jury has heard opening statements from the state prosecution led by Patrick McKay Jr. and defense attorney Julia Moudy. Several witnesses provided testimony about what they saw and heard on the day of the incident. Others, including experts and friends of the parties involved, have described footage of the wreckage, discussed the terrain of Mount Ballyhoo and commented on the popularity of the area among locals, especially teens.
Former Unalaska police officer Theresa Ah-Siu was in charge of the investigation at the time of the crash. She has been on the stand for a large portion of the trial so far, providing information from her case report.
Defense lawyer Moudy has argued that the community immediately considered Ruckman guilty of a crime, considering him a “scapegoat” in the incident. Earlier this week, Moudy questioned Ah-Siu about when she considered the location of the incident to be a crime scene, as opposed to a scene of a motor vehicle crash. Following a lengthy process of back and forth, Ah-Siu said it became a crime scene after they found an alcohol bottle in the vicinity. Ah-Siu couldn’t provide any photo evidence of the bottle she mentioned, and alcohol was ultimately determined not to play a role in the incident.
The court spent most of the first half of the week in cross-examination between the defense and Ah-Siu. That was intermixed with discussion behind closed doors, as the jury waited outside. A large chunk of the conversation centered on how counsel could introduce material from the state’s former expert’s testimony, which Moudy described as a “junk report” that relied on “junk info."
Over the week, Ah-Siu was questioned about Ruckman’s toxicology reports — which all came back negative — her procedures for gathering evidence and securing the scene, as well as the Unalaska Department of Public Safety’s concern for the integrity of the investigation and the Ruckman family’s safety.
New information was presented to the court on Thursday morning after Moudy requested that the state reach out to Unalaska Public Safety to see if there were any other reports made involving the Ruckman family and the victims’ families that hadn’t been submitted to the court.
Moudy reopened her cross examination of Ah-Siu with the late discovery of four reports involving Rentaria Haist’s family and the Ruckmans. She questioned Ah-Siu about the reports and the treatment of Ruckman’s family by the community and the department. Moudy told the court during a recess that she believes the police department performed a biased investigation, targeting the defendant and his family, which she said is grounds for impeachment.
Rentaria Haists' parents also reported unwanted behavior by the Ruckmans. Ah-Siu told prosecutor Mckay that the department's response to the Ruckmans' reports was greater than their response to the Rentaria Haist complaints.
The final witness, Lisa Robinson, was called to the stand Thursday afternoon. Robinson was one of several former Unalaska Public Safety employees who filed lawsuits against the department between 2020 and 2022, citing hostility and misconduct. She described Officer Ah-Siu as “untrustworthy,” but had no direct involvement in the Mount Ballyhoo case.
The state rested its case on Thursday afternoon. The defense concluded the day by calling two new witnesses. The first was Luke Shaishnikoff, a friend of Ruckman’s and the victims’. He testified on the popularity of a portion of road near the top of Mount Ballyhoo and spoke about death threats he received from Rentaria Haist’s parents’ following the crash.
Ruckman did not testify during the trial.
Judge Matthews excused jurors Friday, while Moudy renewed a motion for mistrial based on “cumulative errors” made during Ah-Siu’s testimony, including her reference to Ruckman’s invocation of a right to a lawyer and mention of inadmissible evidence, including the alcohol bottle and what Ah-Siu referred to as Ruckman’s “known mannerisms” on the road.
After the judge denied the motion, Moudy moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that Ruckman didn’t act in a criminally negligent manner. Judge Matthews told the court he would make a decision on the motion over the weekend.
Depending on that decision, attorneys are expected to provide closing statements on Monday. The case will then go to the jury, who will decide whether or not Ruckman is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the two counts of criminally negligent homicide.
