In Redding v. State,[1] the court of appeals upheld the state’s concession that the jury instruction regarding the burden of proof was error. Redding was charged with second degree vehicle theft and argued a defense of necessity. The trial court instructed the jury that Redding had the burden to prove this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Redding appealed this instruction by arguing that the prosecutor had the burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the state conceded that the trial court’s instruction was incorrect. The offense requires that person act without any right to do so. Because lacking the right is integral to the offense, it is the prosecutor’s duty to prove the element and must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the court of appeals reversed the conviction because the jury instruction should have required the defense of necessity to be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] 451 P.3d 1193 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
