Criminal Procedure

  • Charles v. State In Charles v. State, the Alaska Court of Appeals held that revoking a defendant’s probation for “good cause” does not necessarily depend on the defendant’s willful violation but on whether the corrective aims of probation can be achieved.  James Allen Charles Jr. was a repeat sex offender whose probation and parole had been revoked multiple ...
  • Marshall v. State In Marshall v. State, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that a defense counsel’s stipulation to an element of an offense is procedurally permissible, even without a personal waiver by the defendant, so long as the trial court instructs the jury on all of the elements of the offence, including the element covered by ...
  • Hamburg v. State In Hamburg v. State, the Court of Appeals held that the pre-2018 version of the Alaska bail statute, formerly section 12.30.011 of the Alaska Statutes, violated the constitutional provision requiring reasonable conditions of bail release be set for a defendant who has not yet been convicted.  Hamburg was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide ...
  • State v. Thompson In State v. Thompson, the court of appeals held that bail violations during a certain period were not per se criminal offenses and so do not disqualify defendants from getting credit for time served while under electronic monitoring. In February 2016, Thompson was arrested for driving under the influence and released on pre-trial bail with ...
  • Johnson v. State In Johnson v. State, the court of appeals held that a court must affirmatively assess probation conditions restricting familial association with special scrutiny. In 2012, during an altercation between Johnson and a man named Michael Plummer, Plummer was stabbed and killed by Johnson’s son Spencer. Johnson plead guilty to manslaughter, but the terms of his ...
  • Jordan v. State In Jordan v. State, the Supreme Court of Alaska held (1) that failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of a crime is a structural error and so is not susceptible to harmless error review, and (2) that a mental state as toward the weight of marijuana in a defendant’s possession is an ...
  • State v. Bell In State v. Bell, the court of appeals held that section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes requires a defendant lose all credit toward their sentence for a period of release on bail subject to electronic monitoring if it ends because the defendant commits a new crime. In 2015, section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes was ...
  • Wassillie v. State In Wassillie v. State, the supreme court held that an incident report prepared by a staff member at a halfway house was inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Wassillie, who was serving out the remainder of a felony sentence at the Parkview Center halfway house, was found guilty of second-degree escape. ...
  • Olivera v. Rude-Olivera In Olivera v. Rude-Olivera, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that (1) “a party who fails to make required pretrial disclosures ‘without substantial justification’ may not . . . use that information as evidence at trial, ‘unless such failure is harmless,’” and (2) a party is entitled to recover enhanced attorney’s fees if the other ...
  • Chinuhuk v. State In Chinuhuk v. State, the court of appeals held that felony sex offenders sentenced under § 12.55.125(o) must serve out their probation, despite completing their term of imprisonment. Section 12.55.125(o) requires that courts suspend a specified amount of the imprisonment term of a defendant convicted of a sexual felony, and that the felon be placed ...

Criminal Procedure

  • Charles v. State In Charles v. State, the Alaska Court of Appeals held that revoking a defendant’s probation for “good cause” does not necessarily depend on the defendant’s willful violation but on whether the corrective aims of probation can be achieved.  James Allen Charles Jr. was a repeat sex offender whose probation and parole had been revoked multiple ...
  • Marshall v. State In Marshall v. State, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that a defense counsel’s stipulation to an element of an offense is procedurally permissible, even without a personal waiver by the defendant, so long as the trial court instructs the jury on all of the elements of the offence, including the element covered by ...
  • Hamburg v. State In Hamburg v. State, the Court of Appeals held that the pre-2018 version of the Alaska bail statute, formerly section 12.30.011 of the Alaska Statutes, violated the constitutional provision requiring reasonable conditions of bail release be set for a defendant who has not yet been convicted.  Hamburg was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide ...
  • State v. Thompson In State v. Thompson, the court of appeals held that bail violations during a certain period were not per se criminal offenses and so do not disqualify defendants from getting credit for time served while under electronic monitoring. In February 2016, Thompson was arrested for driving under the influence and released on pre-trial bail with ...
  • Johnson v. State In Johnson v. State, the court of appeals held that a court must affirmatively assess probation conditions restricting familial association with special scrutiny. In 2012, during an altercation between Johnson and a man named Michael Plummer, Plummer was stabbed and killed by Johnson’s son Spencer. Johnson plead guilty to manslaughter, but the terms of his ...
  • Jordan v. State In Jordan v. State, the Supreme Court of Alaska held (1) that failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of a crime is a structural error and so is not susceptible to harmless error review, and (2) that a mental state as toward the weight of marijuana in a defendant’s possession is an ...
  • State v. Bell In State v. Bell, the court of appeals held that section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes requires a defendant lose all credit toward their sentence for a period of release on bail subject to electronic monitoring if it ends because the defendant commits a new crime. In 2015, section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes was ...
  • Wassillie v. State In Wassillie v. State, the supreme court held that an incident report prepared by a staff member at a halfway house was inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Wassillie, who was serving out the remainder of a felony sentence at the Parkview Center halfway house, was found guilty of second-degree escape. ...
  • Olivera v. Rude-Olivera In Olivera v. Rude-Olivera, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that (1) “a party who fails to make required pretrial disclosures ‘without substantial justification’ may not . . . use that information as evidence at trial, ‘unless such failure is harmless,’” and (2) a party is entitled to recover enhanced attorney’s fees if the other ...
  • Chinuhuk v. State In Chinuhuk v. State, the court of appeals held that felony sex offenders sentenced under § 12.55.125(o) must serve out their probation, despite completing their term of imprisonment. Section 12.55.125(o) requires that courts suspend a specified amount of the imprisonment term of a defendant convicted of a sexual felony, and that the felon be placed ...