CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Sasha Kahn
In Burton-Hill v. State, 500 P.3d 1016 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, an appellate court has the authority to request supplemental briefing, and effectively used that authority in requesting supplemental briefs regarding the definitions of terms and phrases in Alaska’s riot statute. (Id. at 1023). After several defendants were convicted under Alaska’s riot statute, they appealed, separately arguing that the terms “tumultuous and violent” either did not apply to their activity or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. (Id. at 1019–20). Recognizing the importance of defining these terms, the court of appeals requested supplemental briefing from both parties. (Id.). The State responded by filing a motion asking the court rescind its request for supplemental briefing, arguing that the defendants had waived their right to raise the issues through inadequate initial briefing. (Id. at 1020). However, the court recognized the tension between the service of justice and waiver. (Id. at 1022–23). Thus, the court of appeals held that even with prior inadequate briefing, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, an appellate court has the authority to request supplemental briefing, and effectively used that authority in requesting supplemental briefs regarding the definitions of terms and phrases in Alaska’s riot statute. (Id. at 1023).
