In Kinmon v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that a district court has a duty to resolve disputed questions of law related to statutory interpretation and to instruct the jury as to the proper interpretation at issue. Kinmon was a licensed big game guide and tag vendor. On two alleged occasions, Kinmon led hunts on which hunters filled out the appropriate big game tag paperwork prior to the hunt, but did not pay for the tags until after the hunt. Kinmon was charged with, inter alia, charges stemming from allegations that his clients had hunted big game without “previously purchasing” big game tags. There was a dispute as to the meaning of “previously purchasing,” which the trial court declined to weigh in on, instead allowing both sides to present their chosen definition of the phrase before the jury, which ultimately convicted Kinmon. On appeal, the court of appeals noted the potential complexity of determining when a purchase takes place absent statutory guidance. Accordingly, the court determined that the jury should have received instruction as to what the term “previously purchased” meant in the present context and what types of actions could satisfy the requirement set by the term. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a district court has a duty to resolve disputed questions of law related to statutory interpretation and to instruct the jury as to the proper statutory interpretation at issue.
[1] 451 P.3d 392 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
