Main Menu

Walker v. State

CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Michael Ash

In Walker v. State, 573 P.3d 1116 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska reversed the superior court, holding that giving the Mann instruction and referencing it during closing argument at an attempted murder trial was not harmless error. (Id. at 1118–19). Because the jury found the defendant guilty of attempted-murder, a specific intent crime, the erroneous jury instruction, combined with the prosecution’s reliance on it during closing argument to establish intent, were grounds for a retrial. (Id.). Walker was charged with attempted murder after stabbing a stranger who was gardening outside her apartment. (Id. at 1117). Because the incident was clearly captured on video, the primary issue at trial was whether Walker acted with specific intent to kill—supporting a conviction of attempted murder—or whether he lacked intent to kill and instead recklessly caused her physical injuries, supporting a conviction for first-degree assault. (Id.). Over Walker’s objection, the jury was given an instruction that included burden-shifting language and invited improper speculation. (Id. at 1117–18). This instruction resembled the Mann instruction, which included the burden-shifting phrase “unless the contrary appears from the evidence” and encouraged jurors to speculate about defendant’s intent by directing them to consider what “someone ‘similarly situated . . . and with like knowledge’ would have reasonably intended.” (Id. at 1116–17 (quoting Mann v. United States, 319 F.2d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 1963)). More than five decades ago, the Alaskan Supreme Court adopted the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Mann, admonishing Alaskan trial courts from using similar instructions and holding that giving a Mann instruction is error, although, depending on the circumstances, such error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 1117–18 (citing Menard v. State, 578 P.2d 966, 970 (Alaska 1978)). Here, both the superior court and the Court of Appeals concluded the instruction contained both types of problematic language identified in Mann and that its delivery to the jury, as well as its use during closing argument, constituted clear error. (Id. at 1118–19). Although the superior court held the error harmless,  the Court of Appeals of Alaska reversed, reasoning that because the prosecution used the instruction to argue that Walker acted with the specific intent to kill, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id.). The Court of Appeals of Alaska then remanded the case allowing the State to retry Walker on the attempted murder charge with a properly instructed jury—one not given a Mann instruction—or to resentence him for first-degree assault. (Id. at 1119).

Walker v. State

CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Michael Ash

In Walker v. State, 573 P.3d 1116 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska reversed the superior court, holding that giving the Mann instruction and referencing it during closing argument at an attempted murder trial was not harmless error. (Id. at 1118–19). Because the jury found the defendant guilty of attempted-murder, a specific intent crime, the erroneous jury instruction, combined with the prosecution’s reliance on it during closing argument to establish intent, were grounds for a retrial. (Id.). Walker was charged with attempted murder after stabbing a stranger who was gardening outside her apartment. (Id. at 1117). Because the incident was clearly captured on video, the primary issue at trial was whether Walker acted with specific intent to kill—supporting a conviction of attempted murder—or whether he lacked intent to kill and instead recklessly caused her physical injuries, supporting a conviction for first-degree assault. (Id.). Over Walker’s objection, the jury was given an instruction that included burden-shifting language and invited improper speculation. (Id. at 1117–18). This instruction resembled the Mann instruction, which included the burden-shifting phrase “unless the contrary appears from the evidence” and encouraged jurors to speculate about defendant’s intent by directing them to consider what “someone ‘similarly situated . . . and with like knowledge’ would have reasonably intended.” (Id. at 1116–17 (quoting Mann v. United States, 319 F.2d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 1963)). More than five decades ago, the Alaskan Supreme Court adopted the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Mann, admonishing Alaskan trial courts from using similar instructions and holding that giving a Mann instruction is error, although, depending on the circumstances, such error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 1117–18 (citing Menard v. State, 578 P.2d 966, 970 (Alaska 1978)). Here, both the superior court and the Court of Appeals concluded the instruction contained both types of problematic language identified in Mann and that its delivery to the jury, as well as its use during closing argument, constituted clear error. (Id. at 1118–19). Although the superior court held the error harmless,  the Court of Appeals of Alaska reversed, reasoning that because the prosecution used the instruction to argue that Walker acted with the specific intent to kill, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id.). The Court of Appeals of Alaska then remanded the case allowing the State to retry Walker on the attempted murder charge with a properly instructed jury—one not given a Mann instruction—or to resentence him for first-degree assault. (Id. at 1119).