Main Menu

Aketachunak v. State

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Alison Tobin

In Aketachunak v. State, 563 P.3d 622 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e) does not bar the state from introducing a new charge against a defendant three days before the defendant’s scheduled trial. (Id. at 629). Aketachunak was originally charged with one count of third-degree recidivist assault in connection to his attack on Price, his ex-girlfriend. (Id. at 624). Three-days before the scheduled trial, the state filed an additional charge for misdemeanor unlawful contact, alleging Aketachunak had violated his probation conditions that prohibited him from contacting Price. (Id. at 624–25). At Aketachunak’s arraignment for the unlawful contact charge, his attorney did not ask the court to sever the charges and stated they would still proceed with trial. (Id. at 625). During trial, his attorney objected to the new unlawful contact charge, arguing it introduced new issues into the case. (Id.). The lower court rejected Aketachunak’s motion to sever the charge, citing Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e), which allows for an indictment or information to be amended at any time before the verdict. (Id. at 624–25). On appeal, Aketachunak argued that the State’s introduction of a new charge violates Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e). (Id. at 626). The Court of Appeals of Alaska reasoned that Rule 7(e) is inapplicable when the State has filed a new charge prior to trial. (Id. at 627). Despite rejecting the lower court’s reliance on Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e), the Court of Appeals of Alaska affirmed the lower court’s holding, reasoning that Aketachunak was not prejudiced by the introduction of the new charge given his attorney failed to object to the charge until trial had already begun. (Id. at 627–30). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that while Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e) does not prevent the state from introducing a new charge soon before trial, due process and the right to a speedy trial may instead serve as a check on this government power. (Id.).

Aketachunak v. State

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Alison Tobin

In Aketachunak v. State, 563 P.3d 622 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e) does not bar the state from introducing a new charge against a defendant three days before the defendant’s scheduled trial. (Id. at 629). Aketachunak was originally charged with one count of third-degree recidivist assault in connection to his attack on Price, his ex-girlfriend. (Id. at 624). Three-days before the scheduled trial, the state filed an additional charge for misdemeanor unlawful contact, alleging Aketachunak had violated his probation conditions that prohibited him from contacting Price. (Id. at 624–25). At Aketachunak’s arraignment for the unlawful contact charge, his attorney did not ask the court to sever the charges and stated they would still proceed with trial. (Id. at 625). During trial, his attorney objected to the new unlawful contact charge, arguing it introduced new issues into the case. (Id.). The lower court rejected Aketachunak’s motion to sever the charge, citing Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e), which allows for an indictment or information to be amended at any time before the verdict. (Id. at 624–25). On appeal, Aketachunak argued that the State’s introduction of a new charge violates Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e). (Id. at 626). The Court of Appeals of Alaska reasoned that Rule 7(e) is inapplicable when the State has filed a new charge prior to trial. (Id. at 627). Despite rejecting the lower court’s reliance on Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e), the Court of Appeals of Alaska affirmed the lower court’s holding, reasoning that Aketachunak was not prejudiced by the introduction of the new charge given his attorney failed to object to the charge until trial had already begun. (Id. at 627–30). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that while Alaska Criminal Rule 7(e) does not prevent the state from introducing a new charge soon before trial, due process and the right to a speedy trial may instead serve as a check on this government power. (Id.).