CRIMINAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
Anighya Crocker
In Nordlund v. State, Department of Corrections, 520 P.3d 1178 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court
held that disciplinary decisions by the Department of Corrections will not be set aside unless the
prisoner can show that his procedural due process rights were prejudiced by the proceedings
against him. (Id. at 1180). A prisoner faced disciplinary action after he allegedly violated a rule of
prisoner conduct and subsequently argued with responding guards. (Id.) After being cited for
misconduct, the prisoner requested a disciplinary hearing, at which the hearing officer reviewed
incident reports, witness statements, and surveillance video from the incident. (Id.). The hearing
officer concluded that the prisoner had violated prisoner conduct and imposed 10 days of punitive
segregation, all suspended should the prisoner go 180 days without another guilty finding. (Id. at
1181). The prisoner appealed to the superior court, which reviewed the witness statements but not
the surveillance video. (Id.). Nonetheless, the superior court, citing the standard of review imposed
by state statute, affirmed the disciplinary hearing’s decision because it was supported by some
evidence. (Id.). On appeal to the supreme court, the prisoner argued that the superior court (1) had
erred by applying the “some evidence” standard of review, (2) violated his due process rights by
not permitting in–person testimony, and (3) violated his due process rights by not reviewing the
surveillance footage. (Id. at 1180–82). The supreme court, however, rejected these arguments
because the prisoner failed to show that he was either prejudiced by the refusal to accept in–person
testimony or that he was prejudiced by the choice not to review the video footage. (Id. at 1182–
84). Furthermore, the supreme court held that the superior court applied the proper standard of
review mandated by statute. (Id. at 1183). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court
held that disciplinary decisions by the Department of Corrections will not be set aside unless the
prisoner can show that his procedural due process rights were prejudiced by the proceedings
against him. (Id. at 1180).
