Main Menu

State v. Azzarella

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Hannah Rogers

In State v. Azzarella, 483 P.3d 905 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that a civil compromise is not effective unless and until it is approved by the court. (Id. at 906). The State charged Azzarella with four felony assault charges. (Id. at 905). However, at Azzarella’s preliminary hearing, the State did not present any evidence supporting the felony charges, dismissed two of those charges, and reduced the remaining two charges to misdemeanors. (Id.). Two days after the preliminary hearing, Azzarella’s attorney filed a notice of civil compromise (“compromise”) and requested a hearing at which the court could hear the evidence on the proposed compromise. (Id.). The attorney requested the hearing to be held as soon as possible, specifically by the next day, October 5. (Id.). Before the court ruled on the compromise, a grand jury indicted Azzarella on the four original felony charges. (Id. at 906.). The trial court dismissed the indictment, finding the compromise was completed after Azzarella filed the notice and further prosecution would violate double jeopardy. (Id.). The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment. (Id.). Citing AS 12.45.140, the court found that a crime may not be compromised, nor may the prosecution be dismissed or stayed, “except as provided by law.” (Id.). A compromise only becomes effective if the court agrees to accept it. The filing of a notice of compromise does not qualify as acceptance by the court, so the prosecution of the indictment did not violate double jeopardy. (Id. at 907). Furthermore, the trial court did not have the authority to dismiss Azzarella’s indictment because Alaska law does not allow compromises of felony crimes. (Id. at 906). Finally, the court found that Azzarella’s filing of the notice did not automatically stay the proceedings. (Id. at 907). Reversing the superior court, the court of appeals held that double jeopardy did not prevent the State from seeking indictment on felony charges after a defendant files notice of civil compromise but before the court approved that compromise. (Id. at 906).

State v. Azzarella

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Hannah Rogers

In State v. Azzarella, 483 P.3d 905 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that a civil compromise is not effective unless and until it is approved by the court. (Id. at 906). The State charged Azzarella with four felony assault charges. (Id. at 905). However, at Azzarella’s preliminary hearing, the State did not present any evidence supporting the felony charges, dismissed two of those charges, and reduced the remaining two charges to misdemeanors. (Id.). Two days after the preliminary hearing, Azzarella’s attorney filed a notice of civil compromise (“compromise”) and requested a hearing at which the court could hear the evidence on the proposed compromise. (Id.). The attorney requested the hearing to be held as soon as possible, specifically by the next day, October 5. (Id.). Before the court ruled on the compromise, a grand jury indicted Azzarella on the four original felony charges. (Id. at 906.). The trial court dismissed the indictment, finding the compromise was completed after Azzarella filed the notice and further prosecution would violate double jeopardy. (Id.). The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment. (Id.). Citing AS 12.45.140, the court found that a crime may not be compromised, nor may the prosecution be dismissed or stayed, “except as provided by law.” (Id.). A compromise only becomes effective if the court agrees to accept it. The filing of a notice of compromise does not qualify as acceptance by the court, so the prosecution of the indictment did not violate double jeopardy. (Id. at 907). Furthermore, the trial court did not have the authority to dismiss Azzarella’s indictment because Alaska law does not allow compromises of felony crimes. (Id. at 906). Finally, the court found that Azzarella’s filing of the notice did not automatically stay the proceedings. (Id. at 907). Reversing the superior court, the court of appeals held that double jeopardy did not prevent the State from seeking indictment on felony charges after a defendant files notice of civil compromise but before the court approved that compromise. (Id. at 906).