Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770 (2026)
Hindering prosecution in the first degree
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.56.770. Hindering prosecution in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of hindering prosecution in the first degree if the person renders assistance to a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony with intent to
(1) hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of that person; or
(2) assist that person in profiting or benefiting from the commission of the crime.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person “renders assistance” to another if the person
(1) harbors or conceals the other person;
(2) warns the other person of impending discovery or apprehension;
(3) provides or aids in providing the other person with money, transportation, a dangerous instrument, a disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension;
(4) prevents or obstructs, by means of force, threat, or deception, anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of the other person;
(5) suppresses by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of the other person; or
(6) aids the other person in securing or protecting the proceeds of the crime.
(c) Hindering prosecution in the first degree is a class C felony.
(a) A person commits the crime of hindering prosecution in the first degree if the person renders assistance to a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony with intent to
(1) hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of that person; or
(2) assist that person in profiting or benefiting from the commission of the crime.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person “renders assistance” to another if the person
(1) harbors or conceals the other person;
(2) warns the other person of impending discovery or apprehension;
(3) provides or aids in providing the other person with money, transportation, a dangerous instrument, a disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension;
(4) prevents or obstructs, by means of force, threat, or deception, anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of the other person;
(5) suppresses by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of the other person; or
(6) aids the other person in securing or protecting the proceeds of the crime.
(c) Hindering prosecution in the first degree is a class C felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Anderson v. State, 145 P.3d 617 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006).
Anderson v. State, 145 P.3d 617 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “First, does the Andersons' conduct fit within the statutory definition of first-degree hindering prosecution, AS 11.56.770(@)? And second, did the police violate the Andersons' constitutional rights when they entered the Andersons' home and searched the Andersons' bedroom for…”
Smith v. State, 948 P.2d 473 (Alaska 1997). “610 (tampering with physical evidence); AS 11.56.770 (hindering prosecution in the first degree); AS 11.”
Noblit v. State, 808 P.2d 280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “The Tentative Draft’s hindering prosecution provisions differed only slightly from the versions enacted in AS 11.56.770 and AS 11.56.780. One difference was the extent of awareness of the underlying crime.”
Borja v. State, 886 P.2d 1311 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “However, the superior court ruled that Bor-ja’s California offense had elements substantially similar to the Alaska felony offense of hindering prosecution in the first degree, AS 11.56.770. The superior court therefore ruled that Borja’s California offense should be considered…”
Greinier v. State, 23 P.3d 1192 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “Under AS 11.56.770(a), the State must prove that the defendant rendered assistance "to a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony".”
Thiel v. State, 762 P.2d 478 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). “Under AS 11.56.770, hindering prosecution in the first degree occurs when the accused “renders assistance to a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony with intent to .”
State v. Williams, 653 P.2d 1067 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “Following Travis Dean Williams’ acquittal of a charge of murder in the first degree, the state charged him with two counts of hindering prosecution in the first degree, AS 11.56.770, 1 and with one count of tampering with evidence, AS 11.”
Jerel Tremayne Williams v. State of Alaska, 480 P.3d 95 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021). “He urges this Court to interpret the exception to require joint participation by both spouses in a criminal endeavor before permitting the introduction of a defendant’s marital communications.”
Wagner v. State, 390 P.3d 1179 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017). “It was up to the jury to decide whether Wagner’s testimony created a reasonable doubt as to whether he was sleep-driving.”
Way v. State, 101 P.3d 203 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004). “___ Potentially, Way's continued detention might have been justified if the officers reasonably believed that Way had just helped Noriega escape from the apartment-an action that would have constituted hindering prosecution under AS 11.56.770. But the officers had the apartment…”
State v. Cameron, 113 P.3d 687 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “12 (The supreme court’s opinion does not explain whether this defense would have been presented through Webb’s own testimony, or the testimony of others, or both.”
Yearby v. State, 95 So. 3d 20 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “’ “Thus, when a person renders assistance to a felony probationer by harboring or concealing the probationer, knowing that the police are trying to arrest the probationer for violating the terms of probation, the person acts with the intent to ‘hinder the punishment’ of ‘a…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(a) — 4 cases
Anderson v. State, 145 P.3d 617 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “First, does the Andersons' conduct fit within the statutory definition of first-degree hindering prosecution, AS 11.56.770(@)? And second, did the police violate the Andersons' constitutional rights when they entered the Andersons' home and searched the Andersons' bedroom for…”
Borja v. State, 886 P.2d 1311 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “However, the superior court ruled that Bor-ja’s California offense had elements substantially similar to the Alaska felony offense of hindering prosecution in the first degree, AS 11.56.770. The superior court therefore ruled that Borja’s California offense should be considered…”
Greinier v. State, 23 P.3d 1192 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “Under AS 11.56.770(a), the State must prove that the defendant rendered assistance "to a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony".”
Noblit v. State, 808 P.2d 280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “The Tentative Draft’s hindering prosecution provisions differed only slightly from the versions enacted in AS 11.56.770 and AS 11.56.780. One difference was the extent of awareness of the underlying crime.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(a)(1) — 4 cases
Anderson v. State, 145 P.3d 617 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “First, does the Andersons' conduct fit within the statutory definition of first-degree hindering prosecution, AS 11.56.770(@)? And second, did the police violate the Andersons' constitutional rights when they entered the Andersons' home and searched the Andersons' bedroom for…”
Jerel Tremayne Williams v. State of Alaska, 480 P.3d 95 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021). “He urges this Court to interpret the exception to require joint participation by both spouses in a criminal endeavor before permitting the introduction of a defendant’s marital communications.”
Noblit v. State, 808 P.2d 280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “The Tentative Draft’s hindering prosecution provisions differed only slightly from the versions enacted in AS 11.56.770 and AS 11.56.780. One difference was the extent of awareness of the underlying crime.”
Greinier v. State, 23 P.3d 1192 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “Under AS 11.56.770(a), the State must prove that the defendant rendered assistance "to a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony".”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(b) — 3 cases
Anderson v. State, 145 P.3d 617 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “First, does the Andersons' conduct fit within the statutory definition of first-degree hindering prosecution, AS 11.56.770(@)? And second, did the police violate the Andersons' constitutional rights when they entered the Andersons' home and searched the Andersons' bedroom for…”
Noblit v. State, 808 P.2d 280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “The Tentative Draft’s hindering prosecution provisions differed only slightly from the versions enacted in AS 11.56.770 and AS 11.56.780. One difference was the extent of awareness of the underlying crime.”
Silook v. State, 397 P.3d 352 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(b)(2) — 1 case
Wagner v. State, 390 P.3d 1179 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017). “It was up to the jury to decide whether Wagner’s testimony created a reasonable doubt as to whether he was sleep-driving.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(b)(3) — 2 cases
Jerel Tremayne Williams v. State of Alaska, 480 P.3d 95 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021). “He urges this Court to interpret the exception to require joint participation by both spouses in a criminal endeavor before permitting the introduction of a defendant’s marital communications.”
Silook v. State, 397 P.3d 352 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(b)(4) — 3 cases
Greinier v. State, 23 P.3d 1192 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “Under AS 11.56.770(a), the State must prove that the defendant rendered assistance "to a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony".”
State v. Corbett, 286 P.3d 772 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012).
Silook v. State, 397 P.3d 352 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(c) — 1 case
Noblit v. State, 808 P.2d 280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “The Tentative Draft’s hindering prosecution provisions differed only slightly from the versions enacted in AS 11.56.770 and AS 11.56.780. One difference was the extent of awareness of the underlying crime.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.