Criminal Procedure

Anderson v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Anderson v. State,[1] the supreme court held a police officer validly seized the defendant’s clothing without a warrant because the officer saw the clothing in open view and had probable cause to believe the clothing was evidence of a crime. In the course of breaking into a home, Anderson injured the home’s occupants, and Continue Reading »

Baker v. Duffus

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Baker v. Duffus,[1] the supreme court found that the superior court erred in granting partial summary judgment by not considering whether counterclaims brought were compulsory to an amended cross-complaint, rather than the original cross-complaint, and therefore whether they related back to the original cross-complaint. Baker and Duffus were business partners in a limited liability Continue Reading »

Blalock v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Blalock v. State,[1] the appeals court held that due to absence of clear legislative intent for it to have retroactive effect the “Stand Your Ground” amendment’s changes to self-defense law did not apply retroactively. After conviction for second degree murder, Blalock challenged, inter alia, the refusal of the lower court to instruct the jury Continue Reading »

Good v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Good v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the court of appeals held that AS 29.25.070(g) did not repeal the exceptions against munipal impounding of motor vehicles previously created by the legistlature in AS 28.01.015. Under AS 28.01.010(a), municipalities are restricted from enacting ordinances tha are inconsistent with Alaska’s state motor vehicle laws in Title 28. The Continue Reading »

Inga v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Inga v. State,[1] the appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence to find that the defendant’s act of grabbing victim’s breasts immediately before beating her was coercion by force and not among the least serious conduct included in the definition of second-degree sexual assault. Defendant Inga, who had been violent toward the victim Continue Reading »

Jackson v. Borough of Haines

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Jackson v. Borough of Haines,[1] the supreme court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees in the defendant’s malicious prosecution action. Jackson was charged with disorderly conduct, assault, and resisting arrest in 2012. After a first mistrial, Jackson was convicted of all charges, although the conviction Continue Reading »

Leahy v. Conant

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Leahy v. Conant,[1] the supreme court found the trial court’s failure to provide a pro se litigant support in filing summary judgment affidavits was not harmless. Leahy is a Muslim inmate at the Goose Creek correctional facility in Wasilla who observes halal dietary restrictions and uses scented oils in his daily prayers. Goose Creek Continue Reading »

Smith v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Smith v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that not all eligible jurors within a venue district are awarded an equal chance of serving as jurors under the Alaska constitution. The superior court judge in the defendant’s trial for alleged crimes that occurred in the predominately Alaska Native rural village of Kiana held proceedings Continue Reading »

State v. Cole

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In State v. Cole,[1] the court of appeals held the superior court did not err in allowing the introduction of a videotaped statement under Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(3). A 12 year old girl (“LP”) alleged she was sexually abused by Cole on two occasions. LP gave a videotaped statement describing the abuse to the Continue Reading »

State v. Sharpe

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In State v. Sharpe, the supreme court held that Daubert/Coon determinations on the admissibility of scientific evidence should be subject to the independent judgment of the appellate court as to whether the underlying scientific theory or technique is scientifically valid under the first prong of the Daubert analysis.[1] The case consolidated three cases in which Continue Reading »

Criminal Procedure

Anderson v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Anderson v. State,[1] the supreme court held a police officer validly seized the defendant’s clothing without a warrant because the officer saw the clothing in open view and had probable cause to believe the clothing was evidence of a crime. In the course of breaking into a home, Anderson injured the home’s occupants, and Continue Reading »

Baker v. Duffus

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Baker v. Duffus,[1] the supreme court found that the superior court erred in granting partial summary judgment by not considering whether counterclaims brought were compulsory to an amended cross-complaint, rather than the original cross-complaint, and therefore whether they related back to the original cross-complaint. Baker and Duffus were business partners in a limited liability Continue Reading »

Blalock v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Blalock v. State,[1] the appeals court held that due to absence of clear legislative intent for it to have retroactive effect the “Stand Your Ground” amendment’s changes to self-defense law did not apply retroactively. After conviction for second degree murder, Blalock challenged, inter alia, the refusal of the lower court to instruct the jury Continue Reading »

Good v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Good v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the court of appeals held that AS 29.25.070(g) did not repeal the exceptions against munipal impounding of motor vehicles previously created by the legistlature in AS 28.01.015. Under AS 28.01.010(a), municipalities are restricted from enacting ordinances tha are inconsistent with Alaska’s state motor vehicle laws in Title 28. The Continue Reading »

Inga v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Inga v. State,[1] the appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence to find that the defendant’s act of grabbing victim’s breasts immediately before beating her was coercion by force and not among the least serious conduct included in the definition of second-degree sexual assault. Defendant Inga, who had been violent toward the victim Continue Reading »

Jackson v. Borough of Haines

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Jackson v. Borough of Haines,[1] the supreme court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees in the defendant’s malicious prosecution action. Jackson was charged with disorderly conduct, assault, and resisting arrest in 2012. After a first mistrial, Jackson was convicted of all charges, although the conviction Continue Reading »

Leahy v. Conant

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Leahy v. Conant,[1] the supreme court found the trial court’s failure to provide a pro se litigant support in filing summary judgment affidavits was not harmless. Leahy is a Muslim inmate at the Goose Creek correctional facility in Wasilla who observes halal dietary restrictions and uses scented oils in his daily prayers. Goose Creek Continue Reading »

Smith v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Smith v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that not all eligible jurors within a venue district are awarded an equal chance of serving as jurors under the Alaska constitution. The superior court judge in the defendant’s trial for alleged crimes that occurred in the predominately Alaska Native rural village of Kiana held proceedings Continue Reading »

State v. Cole

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In State v. Cole,[1] the court of appeals held the superior court did not err in allowing the introduction of a videotaped statement under Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(3). A 12 year old girl (“LP”) alleged she was sexually abused by Cole on two occasions. LP gave a videotaped statement describing the abuse to the Continue Reading »

State v. Sharpe

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In State v. Sharpe, the supreme court held that Daubert/Coon determinations on the admissibility of scientific evidence should be subject to the independent judgment of the appellate court as to whether the underlying scientific theory or technique is scientifically valid under the first prong of the Daubert analysis.[1] The case consolidated three cases in which Continue Reading »