In Alvarez-Perdomo v. State,[1] the supreme court held that a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination is structural error warranting automatic reversal. During his criminal trial, defendant Alvarez-Perdomo gave indirect, equivocal, and confused answers in response to the court’s repeated attempts to personally confirm that he intended to waive his right to testify. After numerous unclear exchanges, Alvarez-Perdomo was brought to the stand and examined. Subsequently, Alvarez-Perdomo was convicted and appealed. The court of appeals held that, although the superior court committed constitutional error by pressuring Alvarez-Perdomo to explicitly waive his right to testify, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence against Alvarez-Perdomo. On appeal, the supreme court reversed, holding that a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is a structural error that is intrinsically harmful without regard for its effect on the outcome of the case. The supreme court reasoned that the right against self-incrimination is a matter of the defendant’s personal dignity, not just a procedural trial right; therefore, the likelihood that the error would change the outcome at trial is irrelevant. The supreme court concluded that the violation of Alvarez-Permodo’s right against self-incrimination warranted automatic reversal and remand for new trial.
[1] 454 P.3d 998 (Alaska 2019).
