In Fox v. Grace,[1] the supreme court held that an Alaskan court can modify an out-of-state custody order if it determines that the child, the parent, and all persons acting as parents live outside the issuing state. In early 2018, the Graces filed motions in an Oregon court to modify their custody arrangement with Fox, Continue Reading »
In Charles v. State,[1] 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 was a repeat sex offender whose probation and parole had been revoked multiple Continue Reading »
In Hess v. State[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a prosecutor’s unsupported improper statements during closing arguments constitute plain error if they meet all four prongs of the Adams v. State test. In September 2011, Anchorage police were called to a reported assault of Patricia Hess by her son Christopher. As part of Continue Reading »
In Anderson v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that an intimate relationship between a minor and a high school music teacher indicted on sexual abuse constituted a crime of domestic violence, therefore qualifying for a statutory exception to spousal immunity from adverse testimony. A music teacher allegedly engaged in sexual relations on school grounds Continue Reading »
In Strong v. Williams,[1] the supreme court held that despite pre-trial dismissal with prejudice of a landowner’s settled claims against his neighbors, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not preclude subsequent claims against a municipality on the same underlying facts. Since 1974, John Strong has owned property in Anchorage; since the 1980s, the property has Continue Reading »
In Marshall v. State,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Tanner v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that an Alaska Statute,[2] governing credit for time served while subject to electronic monitoring, did not authorize credit to be awarded if a person is allowed to go grocery shopping because grocery shopping is not an implicitly authorized exception to the statute’s required restraints, and it Continue Reading »
In R.C. v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that courts are authorized to consider a juvenile’s ability to pay when setting the amount of restitution. In 2014, at the age of fifteen, R.C. and another juvenile started a damaging fire on an elementary school playground. R.C. admitted guilt and was charged as a delinquent Continue Reading »
In Matter of Paige M.[1] the supreme court held that a court must conduct a post-petition screening investigation, or appoint a mental health professional to conduct one, before granting a petition for involuntary hospitalization under section 47.30.700 of the Alaska Statutes. A psychologist at a mental health clinic petitioned to have a patient involuntarily hospitalized. Continue Reading »
In Edith A. v. Jonah A.,[1] the Supreme Court held that a party is entitled to a hearing on a motion to modify legal custody if she has alleged specific facts which, if true, demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. Jonah and Edith were married in 2006 and had a son. Jonah filed for divorce Continue Reading »
