In Alvarado v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that an erroneous instruction regarding a judicially noticed fact was not grounds for an automatic reversal of a conviction. Alvarado was charged with three criminal offenses for which age was a necessary element. At trial, the prosecutor requested the judge take judicial notice of Alvarado’s date of birth as noted on the indictment. Defense counsel agreed to this. The court subsequently instructed the jury that it was to take Alvarado’s date of birth as a proven fact. Alvarado was convicted. On appeal, Alvarado argued that the structural error of taking conclusive judicial notice in a criminal trial required automatic reversal of his convictions. The court of appeals found that the harmless error analysis should be applied and affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that the judicial notice of Alvarado’s date of birth was not necessary to the jury’s determination of that element. The court differentiated Smallwood, Fielding, and Rae, noting that, here, defense counsel stipulated to the accuracy of the judicially noticed fact. Therefore, the error was in describing the fact as judicially noticed, rather than stipulated. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that an erroneous instruction regarding a judicially noticed fact was not grounds for an automatic reversal of a conviction where the error was harmless.
[1] 440 P.3d 329 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
