Main Menu

Geisinger v. State

ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Megan Mason Dister

In Geisinger v. State, 2021 Alas. App. LEXIS 97 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) permits counsel to refuse to elicit witness testimony that counsel believes to be false, third-degree assault is not necessarily a lesser included offense of first-degree assault, and flawed jury instructions do not constitute structural error if a party’s argument mitigates the error. (Id. at 6–7, 10–11, 18–19). Geisinger drove his car into the rear end of another car killing one person and injuring two others. (Id. at 1). The superior court convicted Geisinger “of six offenses: manslaughter, two counts of first-degree assault, driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an injury accident, and second-degree forgery.” (Id.). Geisinger appealed his sentence and the court of appeals affirmed. (Id.). Geisinger then applied for post-conviction relief, alleging his trial attorney and his appellate attorney represented him incompetently. (Id.). The superior court granted him relief on some claims and rejected his other claims. (Id.). The court of appeals rejected all of Geisinger’s claims for post-conviction relief, reasoning his trial attorney properly excluded witness testimony that the attorney believed was false because Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) authorizes attorneys to refuse to introduce evidence they know or reasonably believe to be false. (Id. at 6–7). The court of appeals found his trial attorney was not incompetent for failing to argue for a jury instruction for a lesser offense of third-degree assault because the state’s theory alleging Geisinger committed a first-degree assault does not necessarily mean he committed a third-degree assault. (Id. at 10–11). Additionally, the court found Geisinger’s appellate attorney did not act incompetently for failing to argue reversal of Geisinger’s manslaughter and assault charges due to flawed jury instructions because the attorney corrected the error in the jury instructions by explaining the correct law to the jury during oral argument. (Id. at 18–19). Affirming in part and reversing in part, the court of appeals held that Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) permits counsel to refuse to elicit witness testimony that counsel believes to be false, third-degree assault is not necessarily a lesser included offense of first-degree assault, and flawed jury instructions do not constitute structural error if a party’s argument mitigates the error. (Id. at 6–7, 10–11, 18–19, 27).

 

 

 

 

Geisinger v. State

ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Megan Mason Dister

In Geisinger v. State, 2021 Alas. App. LEXIS 97 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) permits counsel to refuse to elicit witness testimony that counsel believes to be false, third-degree assault is not necessarily a lesser included offense of first-degree assault, and flawed jury instructions do not constitute structural error if a party’s argument mitigates the error. (Id. at 6–7, 10–11, 18–19). Geisinger drove his car into the rear end of another car killing one person and injuring two others. (Id. at 1). The superior court convicted Geisinger “of six offenses: manslaughter, two counts of first-degree assault, driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an injury accident, and second-degree forgery.” (Id.). Geisinger appealed his sentence and the court of appeals affirmed. (Id.). Geisinger then applied for post-conviction relief, alleging his trial attorney and his appellate attorney represented him incompetently. (Id.). The superior court granted him relief on some claims and rejected his other claims. (Id.). The court of appeals rejected all of Geisinger’s claims for post-conviction relief, reasoning his trial attorney properly excluded witness testimony that the attorney believed was false because Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) authorizes attorneys to refuse to introduce evidence they know or reasonably believe to be false. (Id. at 6–7). The court of appeals found his trial attorney was not incompetent for failing to argue for a jury instruction for a lesser offense of third-degree assault because the state’s theory alleging Geisinger committed a first-degree assault does not necessarily mean he committed a third-degree assault. (Id. at 10–11). Additionally, the court found Geisinger’s appellate attorney did not act incompetently for failing to argue reversal of Geisinger’s manslaughter and assault charges due to flawed jury instructions because the attorney corrected the error in the jury instructions by explaining the correct law to the jury during oral argument. (Id. at 18–19). Affirming in part and reversing in part, the court of appeals held that Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) permits counsel to refuse to elicit witness testimony that counsel believes to be false, third-degree assault is not necessarily a lesser included offense of first-degree assault, and flawed jury instructions do not constitute structural error if a party’s argument mitigates the error. (Id. at 6–7, 10–11, 18–19, 27).