In Bibi v. Elfrink,[1] the supreme court held value generated by a foreclosure sale constitutes payment under the state usury statute but a junior lienholders loses its security interests in a property when it is sold in foreclosure by the senior lienholder.[2] A couple bought a home using loans from a bank and later received Continue Reading »
In Coleman v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that a bicycle storage shed qualifies as a building for the purposes of Alaska’s burglary statute,[2] and that a conviction for making a false report requires a reasonable likelihood that police would act and expend resources on a false claim.[3] In the case at issue, Coleman Continue Reading »
In Jordan v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that a defendant’s personal consent is not required for the State to dismiss a charge with prejudice after the trial has begun in a criminal prosecution.[2] Anchorage police officers arrested and charged Jordan with assault, among other offenses.[3] At trial, the State sought to dismiss the Continue Reading »
In Jordan v. Watson,[1] the supreme court affirmed a lower court’s denial of a motion by grandparents seeking visitation rights with their grandchild because the filings failed to allege any detriment to the child that would arise from failing to provide visitation rights.[2] Cheryl and Thomas Jordan are the paternal grandparents to their young grandchild, Continue Reading »
In Kylie L. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that it was error for the trial court to excuse OCS from making reasonable efforts to reunify a mother and daughter when an appropriate basis for exclusion was not determined by clear and convincing evidence.[2] In the case at issue, the trial court found that Belinda Continue Reading »
In Bruce H. v. Jennifer L.,[1] the supreme court held that a finding of domestic violence need not be supported by separate judicial proceedings nor multiple incidents of domestic violence for the purposes of finding a substantial change in circumstances when a court decides a legal custody modification motion or makes a best interests determination.[2] Continue Reading »
In Rask v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that an intoxicated driver was denied his due process rights when the police provided him with incorrect and misleading implied consent warnings telling him that he could refuse a chemical breath test without criminal penalties as long as he agreed to submit to a chemical blood Continue Reading »
In Parson v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that the sentencing judge was not clearly mistaken in denying a request for a suspended imposition of a sentence because the judge found that the defendant’s conduct was more severe than common domestic violence assault.[2] After leaving home for a week unannounced, Parson returned home to Continue Reading »
In Rossiter v. State[1], the Alaska Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and held that the inflammatory and misleading nature of the prosecutor’s closing argument required reversal of defendant’s conviction.[2] Devin Rossiter was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing a man.[3] At Mr. Rossiter’s trial, his attorney argued that he should be acquitted because Continue Reading »
In State v. Wright,[1] the supreme court held that an accused individual’s speedy trial right was not violated because he was primarily responsible for the presumptively prejudicial delay due to leaving the state upon realizing he was under investigation.[2] Sean Wright was accused of sexually abusing two young girls and moved away when the investigation Continue Reading »
