- Kangas v. State
In Kangas v. State, the court of appeals held that judges may instruct a jury that mental state may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. A jury convicted Kangas to two 99-year consecutive sentences for the intentional killing of two state troopers whom he knew to be acting in performance of their duties. The ...
- Karrv. State
In Karrv. State, the court of appeals held that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted new information for the purposes of considering a second or subsequent bail review hearing. James Karr, Darrell Sam, and Erwin Nashoanak each appealed their denial for applications for a second or subsequent bail review hearing after the superior court determined ...
- Powell v. State
In Powell v. State, the court of appeals held that, in light of new case law, a Rule 60(b) motion may be filed to challenge erroneous procedural rulings in post-conviction relief proceedings, but final judgments are not entitled to relief based on prospective application of new case law. Following a jury trial in ...
- Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage
Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage
In Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 475 P.3d 1128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that although a judge’s prior service as a municipal prosecutor did not disqualify her from presiding over a criminal case, her prior service as a municipal prosecutor on a particular case ...
- Chinuhuk v. State
Kristen M. Renberg, PhD
Chinuhuk v. State
In Chinuhuk v. State, 472 P.3d 511 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that trial courts do not have the discretion to reduce probation if an offender was previously sentenced to the statutory minimum period of probation because the legislature intended for a sex offender’s sentence to have a ...
- Akelkok v. State
Akelkok v. State
In Akelkok v. State, 475 P.3d 1136 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that the trial court did not violate Charles Akelkok’s due process rights through its efforts to have Annie Sergie testify. (Id. at 1142). Akelkok was convicted of third-degree assault for attacking his daughter after she ...
- Ahvakana v. State
Ahvakana v. State
In Ahvakana v. State, 475 P.3d 1118 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that Ahvakana’s attorney provided him incompetent advice and remanded the case to determine if the advice prejudiced Ahvakana. (Id at 1124, 1126). Ahvakana was indicted with, inter alia, first-degree assault and faced a mandatory 99-year ...
- Adams v. State
In Adams v. State, the court of appeals held that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper because she incorrectly led the jury to believe that the judge could fix an errant verdict. During closing argument of Adams’ murder trial, the defense attorney compared the “reasonable doubt” standard to the level of confidence in making the ...
- Allison v. State
In Allison v. State, the court of appeals held that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding evidence regarding the alleged victim’s potential Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) in defendant’s second-degree murder trial. Clayton Allison was charged with manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and second-degree murder after his 15-month old daughter, J.A., suffered a fatal injury while ...
- Alvarado v. State
In Alvarado v. State, the court of appeals held that an erroneous instruction regarding a judicially noticed fact was not grounds for an automatic reversal of a conviction. Alvarado was charged with three criminal offenses for which age was a necessary element. At trial, the prosecutor requested the judge take judicial notice of Alvarado’s date ...