CRIMINAL LAW
Daniel Clark
In King v. State, 487 P.3d 242 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that sufficient factual findings may support multiple convictions for the same criminal charges without comprising the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes, so long as the individual convictions relate to independent events occurring at different times and on separate occasions. (Id. at 247). King was convicted of ten counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and two counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. (Id. at 244). Neither King nor the State requested specific findings during the initial trial, though the court did provide an explanation of the evidence underlying each conviction. (Id. at 245). Prior to sentencing, King filed a motion for the court to make additional factual findings explaining each verdict, arguing that otherwise King may be convicted of multiple charges for the same behavior in violation of double jeopardy. (Id.). The court therefore reviewed its previous findings and found that each charge related to independent events which occurred at different times. (Id. at 247). King argued on appeal that the trial court made insufficient factual findings to support the imposition of separate convictions for each criminal charge against him. (Id.). The court reasoned that the factual findings of the trial court adequately supported the conclusion that each conviction related to a separate act, and that therefore the two could not be considered the same offense. (Id.). Affirming the trial court on the issue of the sufficiency of factual findings, the court of appeals held that separate convictions of the same criminal charge do not violate double jeopardy so long as each charge is factually related to independent events occurring at different times and on separate occasions. (Id.).
