Main Menu

Simpson v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Margot Graham

In Simpson v. State, 489 P.3d 1181 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that the investigatory stop and breath test of the defendant were warranted and that the defendant’s convictions should not be merged (Id. at 1186, 1188.). Responding to a call from Simpson’s girlfriend, officers found Simpson parked outside of his girlfriend’s house where he admitted he had driven to earlier that evening (Id. at 1184.). The officers searched Simpson’s person and he disclosed that he had a gun in his pocket. (Id.). The officers then arrested him and then performed a breath test on him (Id.). At trial, the jury convicted Simpson of driving under the influence, third-degree weapons misconduct, and fourth-degree weapons misconduct (Id.). The trial court, at a bench trial, also considered Simpson’s prior driving under the influence convictions and found Simpson guilty of felony driving under the influence (Id.). On appeal, Simpson challenged the officer’s performance of the breath test and search and argued that his convictions should be merged (Id. at 1185–87.). The court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the officers had authority to conduct the breath test and it was proper for the authors to conduct the breath test at the station instead of on site (Id. at 1185–86.). The court further reasoned that the officers’ pat-down search was justified because the officers saw a long object in Simpson’s pocket and Simpson reached for that pocket when he stepped out of his car (Id. at 1186.) Since Simpson’s three weapons convictions all concern different societal interests, the court held that the lower court did not error by refusing to merge the three convictions (Id. at 1188.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that the investigatory stop and breath test of the defendant were warranted and that the defendant’s convictions should not be merged (Id. at 1186, 1188.).

Simpson v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Margot Graham

In Simpson v. State, 489 P.3d 1181 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that the investigatory stop and breath test of the defendant were warranted and that the defendant’s convictions should not be merged (Id. at 1186, 1188.). Responding to a call from Simpson’s girlfriend, officers found Simpson parked outside of his girlfriend’s house where he admitted he had driven to earlier that evening (Id. at 1184.). The officers searched Simpson’s person and he disclosed that he had a gun in his pocket. (Id.). The officers then arrested him and then performed a breath test on him (Id.). At trial, the jury convicted Simpson of driving under the influence, third-degree weapons misconduct, and fourth-degree weapons misconduct (Id.). The trial court, at a bench trial, also considered Simpson’s prior driving under the influence convictions and found Simpson guilty of felony driving under the influence (Id.). On appeal, Simpson challenged the officer’s performance of the breath test and search and argued that his convictions should be merged (Id. at 1185–87.). The court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the officers had authority to conduct the breath test and it was proper for the authors to conduct the breath test at the station instead of on site (Id. at 1185–86.). The court further reasoned that the officers’ pat-down search was justified because the officers saw a long object in Simpson’s pocket and Simpson reached for that pocket when he stepped out of his car (Id. at 1186.) Since Simpson’s three weapons convictions all concern different societal interests, the court held that the lower court did not error by refusing to merge the three convictions (Id. at 1188.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that the investigatory stop and breath test of the defendant were warranted and that the defendant’s convictions should not be merged (Id. at 1186, 1188.).