Main Menu

Smith v. State

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Mary Beth Barksdale

In Smith v. State, 484 P.3d 610 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that, where inordinate expenses for travel and housing would arise, a district judge may limit the radius for calling prospective jurors for a criminal case to a distance lower than the 50-mile radius established by Alaska Administrative Rule 15, including limiting to a 5-mile radius. (Id. at 619). Teddy Kyle Smith was convicted of a series of violent felonies based on conduct that occurred near the village of Kiana in the Second Judicial District. (Id. at 611–12). His trial therefore took place in Kotzebue, where a long-standing order pursuant to pre-2015 Alaska Administrative Rule 15 limited the juror venire radius to 5-miles outside of Kotzebue. (Id. at 612–13). Smith challenged the factual basis of the presiding judge’s conclusion that travel and housing expenses made the 5-mile radius a reasonable restriction of the jury venire pool. (Id. at 612). The appellate court first considered the rationale behind Administrative Rule 15, then turned to the history of the rule, citing a series of cases in which the supreme court had found variances from the default 50-mile radius to be reasonable. (Id. at 612–16). Smith argued that the trial court should not have placed the burden of proof on him to show that there was insufficient evidence to support the 5-mile radius. (Id. at 616–17). He also contended that it was an error to consider only the monetary costs of the jury pool radius, pointing to social and cultural considerations. (Id. at 617). The court however rejected Smith’s interpretation of the Rule 15 requirements, finding instead that “unreasonable expense” restriction may be based solely on monetary factors and that Smith’s factual comparisons to other Alaskan cities failed to consider the different reasons for requiring a larger or smaller jury pool radius. (Id. at 617–619). The court of appeals therefore held that, where inordinate expenses for travel and housing would arise, a district judge may limit the radius for calling prospective jurors for a criminal case to a distance lower than the 50-mile radius established by Alaska Administrative Rule 15, including limiting to a 5-mile radius. (Id. at 619).

Smith v. State

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Mary Beth Barksdale

In Smith v. State, 484 P.3d 610 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that, where inordinate expenses for travel and housing would arise, a district judge may limit the radius for calling prospective jurors for a criminal case to a distance lower than the 50-mile radius established by Alaska Administrative Rule 15, including limiting to a 5-mile radius. (Id. at 619). Teddy Kyle Smith was convicted of a series of violent felonies based on conduct that occurred near the village of Kiana in the Second Judicial District. (Id. at 611–12). His trial therefore took place in Kotzebue, where a long-standing order pursuant to pre-2015 Alaska Administrative Rule 15 limited the juror venire radius to 5-miles outside of Kotzebue. (Id. at 612–13). Smith challenged the factual basis of the presiding judge’s conclusion that travel and housing expenses made the 5-mile radius a reasonable restriction of the jury venire pool. (Id. at 612). The appellate court first considered the rationale behind Administrative Rule 15, then turned to the history of the rule, citing a series of cases in which the supreme court had found variances from the default 50-mile radius to be reasonable. (Id. at 612–16). Smith argued that the trial court should not have placed the burden of proof on him to show that there was insufficient evidence to support the 5-mile radius. (Id. at 616–17). He also contended that it was an error to consider only the monetary costs of the jury pool radius, pointing to social and cultural considerations. (Id. at 617). The court however rejected Smith’s interpretation of the Rule 15 requirements, finding instead that “unreasonable expense” restriction may be based solely on monetary factors and that Smith’s factual comparisons to other Alaskan cities failed to consider the different reasons for requiring a larger or smaller jury pool radius. (Id. at 617–619). The court of appeals therefore held that, where inordinate expenses for travel and housing would arise, a district judge may limit the radius for calling prospective jurors for a criminal case to a distance lower than the 50-mile radius established by Alaska Administrative Rule 15, including limiting to a 5-mile radius. (Id. at 619).