Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
This was Gottstein but needs to change to what?
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 274-9493

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


Lega v. State (3/16/2018) ap-2593

Lega v. State (3/16/2018) ap-2593

                                                                               NOTICE
  

              The text         of   this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the                           

             Pacific Reporter              .   Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal                               

             errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts:    



                                                   303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501  

                                                                    Fax:  (907) 264-0878  

                                                        E-mail:  corrections@ akcourts.us  



                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                                     



BENJAMIN  VAITULUI  LEGA,  

                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                      Court of Appeals No. A-11926  

                                                                                                                                                             

                                                      Appellant,                                     Trial Court No. 3PA-13-283 CR  



                                        v.  

                                                                                                                   O  P  I  N  I  O  N  

                                                                                                                                                 

STATE  OF  ALASKA,  

                                                                                                     No. 2593 - March 16, 2018  

                                                                                                                                                    

                                                      Appellee.  



                           Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer,  

                                                                                                                                     

                           Eric Smith, Judge.  

                                                  



                           Appearances:                 Marjorie  A.  Mock,  Anchorage,  under  contract  

                                                                                                                                   

                           with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public  

                                                                                                                                      

                           Defender,              Anchorage,   for   the   Appellant.                                  Michael   Sean  

                                                                                                                                         

                           McLaughlin,  Assistant  Attorney General,  Office  of  Criminal  

                                                                                                                                  

                           Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General,  

                                                                                                                                   

                           Juneau, for the Appellee.  

                                                                            



                           Before:  Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock,  

                                                                                                                                   

                           Superior Court Judge.*  

                                                                        



                                        

                           Judge MANNHEIMER.  



       *      Sitting    by   assignment   made   pursuant   to   Article   IV,   Section   16   of   the   Alaska  



Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).                             


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                                                                                                                          

                    Benjamin Vaitului Lega was convicted of kidnapping and robbery, based  



                                                                                                                           

on evidence that he and an accomplice, Arthur Gray, kidnapped and stole money from  



                                                                                                                          

two Big Lake residents, Judy Holmes and Michael Gearing.  The kidnapping was ended  



                                                                                                                           

when the police conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle  in which all four people were  



            

riding.  



                                                                                                                      

                    In this appeal, Lega argues that his trial judge committed error by allowing  



                                                                                                                      

the prosecutor to introduce various statements that the two victims, Holmes and Gearing,  



                                                                                                                                 

made to the police after the officers had ended the kidnapping and freed the victims.  



                                                                                                                             

                    For the reasons explained here, we conclude that some of Holmes's and  



                                                                                                                               

Gearing's prior statements were properly admitted, and that the trial judge's  error  in  



                                                                                              

admitting the remainder of the prior statements was harmless.  



                             

          Underlying facts  



                                                                                                                                 

                    Late in the evening on February 2, 2013, Judy Holmes  was dozing in a  



                                                                                                                         

chair at her home in Big Lake when she was awakened by her dogs barking.                                                 When  



                                                                                                                                

Holmes opened her eyes, she saw Arthur Gray (Lega's co-defendant) pointing a gun at  



                                                                              

her.  Benjamin Lega was also present in the room.  



                                                                                                                           

                    According to Holmes's testimony, Gray and Lega asked her to give them  



                                                                                                                         

money - $17,000 that they claimed Holmes owed to a woman in Anchorage.  When  



                                                                                                                            

Holmes told Lega and Gray that she had no idea what they were talking about, the men  



                                                                                           

began searching Holmes's house for money and valuables.  



                                                                                                                               

                    At  some  point,  Holmes's  boyfriend,  Michael Gearing,  walked  over  to  



                                                                                                                    

Holmes's  house  to  check  on  her.                    (Gearing lived  in  a  separate  cabin  on  Holmes's  



                                                                                                                            

property.)   When Gearing tried to enter the house, he was intercepted by Lega, who  



                                                  

pointed a gun in Gearing's face.  



                                                              - 2 -                                                         2593
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                                                                                                                            

                    While  Gray guarded Holmes, Lega escorted Gearing to his cabin.   Lega  



                                                                                                                           

searched the cabin and found Gearing's wallet and bank cards.  When they left the cabin,  



                                                                                                                                 

Lega noticed a Quonset hut that contained marijuana plants.  Lega ordered Gearing to  



                                                                     

cut down all these plants and set them aside.  



                                                                                                                         

                    Lega and Gearing then returned to Holmes's house. Lega and Gray decided  



                                                                                                                               

to force Holmes and Gearing to drive back to Anchorage - to clear  things  up by  



                                                                                                                               

bringing Holmes face to face  with  the  woman who claimed that Holmes owed her  



              

money.  



                                                                                                                              

                    At Lega's and Gray's direction, the valuables from Holmes's house,  plus  



                                                                                                                     

the freshly cut marijuana plants and Gearing's television, were all loaded into Holmes's  



                                                                                                                       

vehicle,  a Ford Explorer.                Lega and Gray then forced Gearing to drive the Explorer  



                                                                                                       

toward Anchorage, with Holmes riding handcuffed in the rear seat.  



                                                                                                                        

                    Shortly before 2:00 a.m. that morning (February 3, 2013), Officer William  



                                                                                                                            

Rapson observed a Ford Explorer driving on the Parks Highway near Wasilla. The car's  



                                                                                                                               

headlights were flashing erratically, so Officer Rapson conducted a traffic stop of the  



                                                                                                                                

vehicle.   Gearing was in the driver's seat, with Lega in the front passenger seat next to  



                                                                       

him.  Gray and Holmes were in the back seat.  



                                                                                                                   

                    Officer Rapson testified that he could smell a "strong odor of marijuana"  



                                                                                                                        

coming from the vehicle, and he saw a bag in the cargo area that appeared to contain  



                                                                                                                                     

marijuana plants.  Rapson also observed what appeared to be a rifle case inside the car.  



                                                                                                                            

                    When  Officer   Rapson  attempted   to   speak  to  Gearing,   Lega  kept  



                                                                                                                                    

interrupting, and Lega answered many of the questions that Rapson directed to Gearing.  



                                                                                                                                

It seemed to Officer Rapson that Lega was trying  to  end the contact as quickly as  



                                                                                                                               

possible.  When Rapson asked each occupant for identification, all of them claimed not  



                                                                                                                           

to be carrying identification.  Officer Rapson then asked each passenger for their name,  



                                                                                                                          

so he could check the APSIN database for arrest warrants.  Rapson was able to locate  



                                                              - 3 -                                                          2593
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                                                                                                        

three of the occupants' names in APSIN, but he could not find Lega's name - because  



                                                               

Lega had given the officer a false name.  



                                                                                                                                 

                    At this point, Officer Rapson had Gearing get out of the car, intending to  



                                                                                                                               

question him about the rifle case and the marijuana.   Once Gearing was  outside the  



                                                                                                                                

vehicle, he told Officer Rapson that he and Holmes had been robbed and kidnapped by  



                                                                                                                              

Lega and Gray.  Officer Rapson radioed for backup.  He then patted down Gearing and  



                                     

placed him in his patrol car.  



                                                                                                                              

                    By the time Gearing was secured in Rapson's patrol car, backup police and  



                                                                                                                             

troopers had arrived on the scene.  The officers first removed Lega from the vehicle, then  



                                                                                                                        

Gray, and finally Holmes.   When Holmes was removed from the vehicle, the officers  



                                                                       

observed that she was bound with handcuffs.  



                                                                                                                                

                    Holmes was moved to a patrol vehicle, and she was briefly questioned by  



                                                                                                                              

State Trooper Paul Wegrzyn.   Holmes corroborated Gearing's statement that she and  



                                                                                                                        

Gearing had been robbed and kidnapped.   In her conversation with Wegrzyn, Holmes  



                                                                                         

furnished the basic details of the robbery and kidnapping.  



                                                                                                                               

                    The officers then drove Holmes and Gearing in separate patrol cars to the  



                                                                                                                        

Mat-Su West trooper post. There, they were separately interviewed by Troopers Michael  



                                        

Henry and David Bower.  



                                                                                                                     

                    Meanwhile,  Officer  Rapson  and  Trooper  Wegrzyn  drove  to  Holmes's  



                                                                                                                              

residence to look for evidence of the alleged robbery and kidnapping.  They found that  



                                                                                                                         

the interior of Holmes's house appeared to have been ransacked:  items were strewn  



                                                                                                                              

across the floor, including a gun holster, a broken cell phone, and cards of the type that  



                                                                                                                           

would be carried in a wallet (e.g., business cards).  Outside the home, the officers found  



                                                                 

fresh marijuana leaves lying on the snow.  



                                                                                                                             

                    Based  on  the  circumstances  of  the  traffic  stop,  and  on  Holmes's  and  



                                                                                                                            

Gearing's separate statements, the officers concluded  that Holmes and Gearing were  



                                                              - 4 -                                                          2593
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                                                                                                                            

telling the truth about being robbed and kidnapped.   Trooper Henry then drove them  



                                                                                                                              

back to Holmes's house.  On the way, they talked further about what had happened, and  



                                                                   

Trooper Henry recorded this conversation.  



                                                                                                                               

                    When the three arrived at Holmes's house,  Trooper Henry entered the  



                                                                                                                               

house with Holmes and Gearing, and he accompanied them as they walked around the  



                                                                                                                              

crime scene and talked again about the events  of the evening.                                      Henry recorded this  



                                 

conversation as well.  



                                                                                                                                

                    These various prior statements made by Holmes and Gearing became an  



                                                                                                                            

issue at trial because of the theory of defense asserted by the attorneys representing Lega  



                                            

and his co-defendant Gray.  



                                                                                                                          

                    The  defense  contended  that  all  four  people  involved  -  Lega,  Gray,  



                                                                                                                              

Holmes, and Gearing -  were actually partners in a marijuana growingscheme, and that  



                                                                                                                             

Holmes and Gearing(plotting beforehand) had concocted a story to tell the police in case  



                                                                                                                                

they were ever stopped and questioned - a story about being robbed and kidnapped by  



                          

Lega and Gray.  



                                                                                                                               

                    Because this was the defense theory of the case, the trial judge allowed the  



                                                                                                                            

State to introduce the various statements made by Holmes and Gearing after they were  



                                                                                                                     

stopped by the police - under the theory that these statements were "prior consistent  



                                                                                                                                 

statements" as defined in Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B).  The prior statements at  



                    

issue were:  



                                                                                                                               

                     1.  the statement that Holmes made to a police officer at the scene of the  



                              

          traffic stop;  



                                                                                                                            

                    2 & 3.   the  statements that Holmes and Gearing made when they were  



                                                                                                                              

          questioned separately by the police within an hour following the traffic stop; and  



                                                              - 5 -                                                          2593
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                                                                 4   &   5.    the two recorded conversations that took place after the police                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                 concluded that Holmes and Gearing were telling the truth about being kidnapped.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                 One of these conversations occurred while Holmes and Gearing were riding in a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                                 patrol car back to Holmes's residence, where the robbery and kidnapping began.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                                 The other conversation took place after Holmes and Gearing arrived at Holmes's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                 residence, when they toured the residence with Trooper Henry while the officers                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



                                 were looking for physical evidence.                                                                                                                                          



                                                                 In   this   appeal,   Lega   contends   that   the   trial judge                                                                                                                                                                                             committed   error   by  



 allowing the State to introduce Holmes's and Gearing's prior statements, and that this                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



 error requires reversal of his conviction.                                                                                                                                                        



                                  The applicable law                                                        



                                                                 Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B) governs the admissibility of a witness's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



 out-of-court statements when those prior statements are consistent with the witness's trial                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



testimony.    



                                                                 Generally speaking, Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B) allows a party to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 introduce the prior statement of a witness when the other party attacks the witness's trial                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



testimony as being the product of "recent fabrication",                                                                                                                                                                                                                             or the product of "improper                                                                



 influence or motive".                                                                                  But the more precise rule is set forth in this Court's decisions in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               1        In those cases, this Court  

Nitz v. State                                                ,  Nusinginya v. State                                                                                 , and                    Thompson v. State                                                                           .                                                                                                           



 interpreted Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B) as allowing the admission of a prior consistent  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 statement in two distinct situations:  

                                                                                                                                                                          



                 1              Nitz v. State                                              , 720 P.2d 55 (Alaska App. 1986);                                                                                                                               Nusinginya v.                                                         State , 730 P.2d 172                                                          



 (Alaska App. 1986);                                                                         Thompson v. State                                                                       , 769 P.2d 997 (Alaska App. 1989).                                                                                                                                 



                                                                                                                                                                                                        - 6 -                                                                                                                                                                                                  2593
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                               If the witness's prior consistent statement                                                                                                   pre-dates  the alleged motive for                                                                   



 fabrication or the alleged improper influence -                                                                                                                 i.e., if the prior consistent statement was                                                                                 



made before the asserted                                                                   impetus for fabrication arose - then the prior statement is                                                                                                                                              



 admissible as                                substantive  evidence.   See Nitz                                                                       , 720 P.2d at 66.                                        That is, the jury is allowed                                     



to rely on the prior consistent statement, not just for purposes of assessing the credibility                                                                                                                                                                            



 of the witness's trial testimony,                                                                               but   also as independent evidence of the truth of the                                                                                                                        



matters asserted in the prior statement.                                                                                                 



                                               If the witness's prior consistent statement does                                                                                                                     not  pre-date the asserted                                



motive to fabricate or the asserted improper influence, the prior consistent statement can                                                                                                                                                                                                     



nevertheless be admissible if the trial judge concludes that the                                                                                                                                                circumstances  of the prior                                               



 statement reasonably bolster the credibility of the witness's trial testimony - apart from                                                                                                                                                                                              



the mere fact that the prior statement is consistent with the witness's trial testimony.                                                                                                                                                                                                    See  



Nitz, 720 P.2d at 58, 66;                                                              Nusinginya, 730 P.2d at 174;                                                                              Thompson, 769 P.2d at 1001.                                                                                



                                               In  Nitz, for example, the defendant asserted that the victim had fabricated                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2     But  

 allegations of sexual abuse so that Nitz would be removed from her family home.                                                                                                                                                                                                             



the evidence showed that the victim had "consistently been reluctant to discuss Nitz's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 offenses" - that her early accounts of the abuse "included only partial details", and that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



 "considerable efforts had to be  expended over a lengthy period of time before [the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         3        Given these  

victim] was willing to discuss her experiences more fully and openly."  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



 circumstances,  we  concluded  that  the  victim's  prior  statements  had  relevance  that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



 derived, not so much from the fact that the prior statements were consistent with the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



victim's trial testimony,  but rather from the circumstances and manner in which the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



            2          Nitz , 720 P.2d at 68.                                               



            3  

                                         

                       Ibid.  



                                                                                                                                              - 7 -                                                                                                                                          2593
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                                                   4  

victim made those prior statements.                                                     That is, the victim's repeated reluctance to fully                                                 



 discuss these matters was seemingly inconsistent with the defense assertion                                                                                                      that the   



victim purposely made false allegations in order to rid herself of Nitz.                                                                                       



                               However, if a prior statement is admitted under this second rationale, the                                                                                     



jury can not consider it as substantive evidence.                                                              The witness's prior statement is only                                       



                                                                                                                                                                                           5  

 admissible for purposes of assessing the credibility of the witness's trial testimony.                                                                                                        



                Our analysis of the trial judge's ruling  

                                                                                           



                               In Lega's case, the trial judge concluded that Holmes's and Gearing's prior  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



 statements did not pre-date their alleged motive to falsify, but that those prior statements  

                                                                                                                                                                             



were  nevertheless  admissible  under  Nitz  to  bolster  the  credibility  of  Holmes's  and  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



 Gearing's trial testimony.   The judge therefore allowed the prosecutor to introduce all  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



 of the prior statements, and to introduce those statements in their entirety.  

                                                                                                                                                                          



                               The judge's ruling is problematic in two respects.  

                                                                                                                           



                               First, the judge did not specifically address the circumstances of Holmes's  

                                                                                                                                                                                



 and Gearing's prior consistent statements, nor did he explain why those circumstances  

                                                                                                                                                                     



were probative of Holmes's and Gearing's credibility as trial witnesses, apart from the  

                                                                                                                                                                                              



mere fact that the prior statements were consistent with their trial testimony.  

                                                                                                                                                                               



                               Second,  the  judge  did  not  evaluate  whether  Holmes's  and  Gearing's  

                                                                                                                                                                              



 statements should be admitted in their entirety, or whether those statements should be  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



 abridged or summarized owing to considerations of cumulativeness, waste of time, or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



unfair prejudice.  See Evidence Rule 403.  Here, the judge allowed the prosecutor to play  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



        4      Ibid.   



        5  

                                                                      

               Nitz , 720 P.2d at 58, 68.  



                                                                                              - 8 -                                                                                        2593
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

the entire audio recordings of Holmes's and                                                  Gearing's prior statements - recordings                         



that (taken together) were hours long.                                         



                            As this Court noted in                           Thompson,   the "sheer repetition" of a witness's                                 



account presents the risk that the jury's attention may be improperly diverted from its                                                                                      

                                                                                                 6   Moreover, as explained in Nitz, when  

task of evaluating the witness's live testimony.                                                                                                                       



a witness's prior statements are admitted  into evidence, especially at such length and in  

                                                                                                                                                                               



such detail, there is an inherent potential for unfair prejudice because the jury may fall  

                                                                                                                                                                            

prey to "the false impression that repetition adds substance to the [witness's] story" 7 -  

                                                                                                                                                                             



when,  in fact,  repetition of the witness's story  adds nothing of substance unless the  

                                                                                                                                                                           



timing or the other circumstances of the prior statements will assist the jury in evaluating  

                                                                                                                                                              



the credibility of the witness's in-court testimony.  

                                                                                                        



                            Thus, when either party proposes to introduce a witness's prior consistent  

                                                                                                                                                              



statements under Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B), it is important for trial judges to engage  

                                                                                                                                                                    



in the analysis we have described here.  That was not done in the present case.  

                                                                                                                                                        



                           Nevertheless, with regard to the statement that Holmes made at the scene  

                                                                                                                                                                       



of the traffic stop, and with regard to the statements that Holmes and Gearing gave to the  

                                                                                                                                                                            



police when they were separately interviewed shortly after the traffic stop, we conclude  

                                                                                                                                                                



that the circumstances of these statements provided ample justification for admitting this  

                                                                                                                                                                           



evidence - because the circumstances of these statements obviously supported the  

                                                                                                                                                                            



inference that Holmes and Gearing were telling the truth at trial.  

                                                                                                                                     



                            Holmes  and  Gearing  separately  gave  detailed  and  largely  matching  

                                                                                                                                                               



descriptions of what had happened to them.  In their descriptions, Holmes and Gearing  

                                                                                                                                                                  



provided specific details of the kidnapping - the chronology of events, the words that  

                                                                                                                                                                          



       6      Thompson, 769 P.2d at 1003.
                                



       7  

                                                        

              Nitz , 720 P.2d at 69.
  



                                                                                     - 9 -                                                                                2593
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                                                                             

Lega and Gray spoke during the kidnapping, the specific ways in which Lega and Gray  



                                                                                                                            

used  force against Holmes and Gearing, and the places on the property where these  



                              

assaults occurred.  



                                                                                                                               

                    It was improbable that Holmes and Gearing could have manufactured this  



                                                                                                                             

kind of detail beforehand, and they had no time to manufacture this kind of detail after  



                                                                                                                                      

the police ended the kidnapping and took the two of them away for separate interviews.  



                                                                                                                                

Thus, as in Nitz, the relevance of Holmes's and Gearing's prior statements derived, not  



                                                                                                                     

so much from the fact that the prior statements were consistent with their trial testimony,  



                                                                                           

but rather from the circumstances of the prior statements.  



                                                                                                                      

                    The situation is more complicated with respect to Holmes's and Gearing's  



                                                                                                                      

later statements - their statements in the patrol car  on  the  way back to Holmes's  



                                                                                  

residence, and then their statements at the residence.  



                                                                                                                              

                    As we have explained, the audio recordings of those statements were quite  



                                                                                                                                 

long.     This meant that a significant  portion of the jury's time was spent listening to  



                                                                                                                      

Holmes's and Gearing's out-of-court statements - raising concerns under Evidence  



                                                                                                                              

Rule 403.   And to the extent that the judge allowed the prosecutor to play these later  



                                                                                                                              

statements  merely  because  they  were  repetitions  of  what  Holmes  and  Gearing had  



                                                                                                                               

already told the police in their earlier statements,  or repetitions of what Holmes and  



                                                                                                        

Gearing said in their trial testimony, this would be error under Nitz.  



                                                                                                                                 

                    Nevertheless, even if it was improper to admit those later statements, or  



                                                                                                                            

even if those later statements should only have been presented in a much-abridged form,  



                                                                                                                           

any  error  was  harmless.                 As  we  have  explained,  Holmes's  and  Gearing's  earlier  



                                                                                                                          

statements were properly admitted.  Moreover, the State's version of events was directly  



                                                                                                                                 

corroborated by the physical evidence in the case (most significantly, the condition of  



                                                                                                                                  

Holmes's and Gearing's residences, and the fact that Holmes was bound in handcuffs in  



                                                                                                                           

the car).  This version of events was substantially more plausible than the defense theory  



                                                              -  10 -                                                         2593
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

of the case.                                             Because of this, we can confidently                                                                                                                                                 say that the admission of the later                                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       8  

statements did not appreciably affect the jury's verdicts.                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                                                             Accordingly, the judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                8              See Love v. State                                                         , 457 P.2d 622,634 (Alaska1969) (holdingthat, for instances of non-                                                                                                                                                                                                              



constitutional error, the test for harmlessness is whether the appellate court "can fairly say                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

that the error did not appreciably affect the jury's verdict").                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                                                           -  11 -                                                                                                                                                                                         2593
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC