CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)
Connor Sakati
In State v. Jouppi., 519 P.3d 653 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that, to
determine if a forfeiture in a criminal case is unconstitutionally excessive, courts must consider
how harsh the legislature intended to make the crime’s punishment, whether the defendant’s
conduct was part of a broader pattern of illegal activity, and if the defendant still can earn an
income after the property is forfeited. (Id. at 659–665). Jouppi was convicted of attempting to
transport alcohol via airplane into a village that had banned alcohol imports. (Id. at 656). After his
conviction, the State attempted to forfeit Jouppi’s airplane, as Alaska law requires, but the district
court ruled that the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. (Id. at
657). The State appealed, arguing that forfeiting the plane was not “grossly disproportionate” to
the severity of Jouppi’s offense. (Id. at 659). To assess this claim, the court of appeals applied a
four–factor test developed by the U.S. Supreme Court, weighing “(1) the nature and extent of the
defendant’s crime and its relation to other criminal activity, (2) whether the defendant falls among
the class of persons for whom the statute was principally designed, (3) the other penalties that
might be imposed on the defendant under the applicable provisions of law, and (4) the nature and
extent of the harm caused by the defendant’s offense.” (Id. at 660–61). Applying this test, the court
of appeals found that the lower court had failed to allow the State to offer evidence of Jouppi’s
other bootlegging activities. (Id. at 662). The lower court also should have considered the forfeiture
act’s legislative history, to better determine the harm the legislature intended to prevent. (Id. at
662–63). Further, the lower court should have considered whether the forfeiture would deprive
Jouppi of his livelihood or his ability to provide for his family because of the amount of the
monetary loss. (Id. at 665). Vacating the lower court’s decision and remanding for further
proceedings, the court of appeals held that, to determine if forfeiting Jouppi’s airplane would be
excessive, the court must consider how harsh the legislature intended to make a punishment,
whether the defendant’s conduct was part of a broader pattern of illegal activity, and if the
defendant still can earn an income after the property is forfeited. (Id. at 659–665).
