Main Menu

Burton-Hill v. State

CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Drew Loughlin

In Burton-Hill v. State, 569 P.3d 1 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that the crime of riot as defined in AS 11.61.100(a) requires the common-law elements of mutual agreement by defendant and at least five other people and applies only when the conduct creates a likelihood of public terror and alarm. (Id. at 24, 26). The case arose from a disturbance at Fairbanks Correctional Center, where three dozen inmates refused to be moved from A Wing to a different module of the facility, eventually leading to a SORT team administering chemical agents to quell the disturbance. (Id. at 11). Thirteen defendants were charged with riot and criminal mischief. (Id.). Three of these defendants were tried together and convicted; they appealed, citing improper jury instructions. (Id. at 12). AS 11.61.100(a) defines riot as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” while “participating with five or more others.” (Id.). The trial court interpreted “participating with” to include any circumstances where the defendants’ own conduct would involve five or more individuals. (Id at 20). Relying on the common law, however, the Court rejected this reading and concluded that the statute required “mutual agreement . . . (1) to achieve or advance a shared purpose (2) by engaging in tumultuous and violent conduct, and (3) by assisting each other in committing this tumultuous and violent conduct, including resisting anyone who might oppose it.” (Id. at 24). Similarly, the Court held that the trial court’s dictionary definition of “tumultuous” as “loud, excited and chaotic” was insufficient. (Id. at 25). The Court ruled that “tumultuous conduct” was something that created “a likelihood of public terror and alarm.” (Id at 26). Lastly, the Court noted it was plain error of the trial court not to give the jury instruction about proximate cause and the state’s burden of proof under the Criminal Mischief Statute. (Id at 39). As a result, the Court of Appeals of Alaska reversed the superior court’s judgments against the three defendants. (Id. at 46).

Burton-Hill v. State

CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Drew Loughlin

In Burton-Hill v. State, 569 P.3d 1 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that the crime of riot as defined in AS 11.61.100(a) requires the common-law elements of mutual agreement by defendant and at least five other people and applies only when the conduct creates a likelihood of public terror and alarm. (Id. at 24, 26). The case arose from a disturbance at Fairbanks Correctional Center, where three dozen inmates refused to be moved from A Wing to a different module of the facility, eventually leading to a SORT team administering chemical agents to quell the disturbance. (Id. at 11). Thirteen defendants were charged with riot and criminal mischief. (Id.). Three of these defendants were tried together and convicted; they appealed, citing improper jury instructions. (Id. at 12). AS 11.61.100(a) defines riot as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” while “participating with five or more others.” (Id.). The trial court interpreted “participating with” to include any circumstances where the defendants’ own conduct would involve five or more individuals. (Id at 20). Relying on the common law, however, the Court rejected this reading and concluded that the statute required “mutual agreement . . . (1) to achieve or advance a shared purpose (2) by engaging in tumultuous and violent conduct, and (3) by assisting each other in committing this tumultuous and violent conduct, including resisting anyone who might oppose it.” (Id. at 24). Similarly, the Court held that the trial court’s dictionary definition of “tumultuous” as “loud, excited and chaotic” was insufficient. (Id. at 25). The Court ruled that “tumultuous conduct” was something that created “a likelihood of public terror and alarm.” (Id at 26). Lastly, the Court noted it was plain error of the trial court not to give the jury instruction about proximate cause and the state’s burden of proof under the Criminal Mischief Statute. (Id at 39). As a result, the Court of Appeals of Alaska reversed the superior court’s judgments against the three defendants. (Id. at 46).