CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2023)
Justin T. Reed
In Maxie v. State, 530 P.3d 380 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023) the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled that a jury instruction which fails to comport with judicial precedent is nevertheless insufficient to overturn a conviction where that error would not appreciably affect the resultant verdict. (Id. at 387). Following a jury trial, Maxie was convicted of several charges relating to an incident in which he repeatedly rammed a four-wheeler into an occupied vehicle and subsequently fled from the police. (Id. at 381). Integral to Maxie’s conviction was the testimony of several eyewitnesses, including two police officers who were previously familiar with Maxie. (Id. at 382). Maxie appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court’s jury instructions included insufficient information regarding scientific research on the fallibility of eyewitness identifications, thereby failing to comport with guidelines previously set forth by the Alaska Supreme Court. (Id. at 383–84). While the court of appeals agreed that the trial court’s jury instructions were in error (Id. at 386), it nevertheless upheld Maxie’s conviction, ruling that the trial court’s error was insufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome of the case (Id. at 387). The court of appeals primarily reasoned that the eyewitness identifications in question were not stranger identifications, but rather identifications by police officers who were previously familiar with Maxie. (Id. at 386). Due to their existing familiarity with Maxie, the court deemed the officers to be significantly less susceptible to factors which lead to misidentifications. (Id.). The court of appeals also noted that, while the trial court’s jury instructions lacked references to scientific research, they nevertheless compelled the jury to examine eyewitness testimony critically rather than to take it as face value. (Id.) Moreover, the court of appeals noted that several factors which may contribute to eyewitness misidentifications, like duration of observation and environmental conditions, are common-sense considerations already understood by jurors, so their omission from the jury instructions were likely inconsequential. (Id.) In conjunction, these factors led the court of appeals to affirm Maxie’s conviction on the grounds that a jury instruction which fails to comport with judicial precedent is nevertheless insufficient to overturn a conviction where that error would not appreciably affect the resultant verdict. (Id. at 387).
