Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.81.420 (2026)
Justification: Performance of public duty
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.81.420. Justification: Performance of public duty.
(a) Unless inconsistent with AS 11.81.320 — 11.81.410, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified when it is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, judgment, or order.
(b) The justification afforded by this section also applies when
(1) the person reasonably believes the conduct to be required or authorized by a decree, judgment, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; or
(2) the person reasonably believes the conduct to be required or authorized to assist a peace officer in the performance of the officer's duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded the officer's authority.
(a) Unless inconsistent with AS 11.81.320 — 11.81.410, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified when it is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, judgment, or order.
(b) The justification afforded by this section also applies when
(1) the person reasonably believes the conduct to be required or authorized by a decree, judgment, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; or
(2) the person reasonably believes the conduct to be required or authorized to assist a peace officer in the performance of the officer's duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded the officer's authority.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1987–1997 · leading case: Jurco v. State, 825 P.2d 909 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992).
Jurco v. State, 825 P.2d 909 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “This common-law rule has been codified in Alaska; AS 11.81.420 provides: Justification: Performance of public duty.”
Haggren v. State, 829 P.2d 842 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “AS 11.81.420. However, none of these exceptions applies to Haggren’s case.”
Vaden v. State, 742 P.2d 784 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “Judge Coats may be suggesting, in dicta, that Snell's action might have been excusable under AS 11.81.420. [1] The applicability of this section has not been briefed, and I have grave reservations regarding the question.”
Vaden v. State, 768 P.2d 1102 (Alaska 1989). “See AS 11.81.420. [10] As the court of appeals concluded, a justification defense is personal to the undercover agent and not transferable to the accomplice.”
Gilbreath v. Mun. of Anchorage, 773 P.2d 218 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). “We are particularly troubled because the performance of public duty defense described in AS 11.81.420 is a defense, AS 11.81.300, rather than an affirmative defense.”
Gudmundson v. State, 763 P.2d 1360 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). “See AS 11.81.420(a) (otherwise illegal act justified, if required or authorized by law).”
Morgan v. State, 943 P.2d 1208 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). “The Alaska legislature has created a limited “mistake of law” defense; AS 11.81.420(a) and (b)(1) declare that conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified when the defendant reasonably believes that the conduct “is required or authorized by law or by a…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.420(a) — 3 cases
Gudmundson v. State, 763 P.2d 1360 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). “See AS 11.81.420(a) (otherwise illegal act justified, if required or authorized by law).”
Vaden v. State, 742 P.2d 784 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “Judge Coats may be suggesting, in dicta, that Snell's action might have been excusable under AS 11.81.420. [1] The applicability of this section has not been briefed, and I have grave reservations regarding the question.”
Morgan v. State, 943 P.2d 1208 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). “The Alaska legislature has created a limited “mistake of law” defense; AS 11.81.420(a) and (b)(1) declare that conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified when the defendant reasonably believes that the conduct “is required or authorized by law or by a…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.420(b) — 1 case
Haggren v. State, 829 P.2d 842 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “AS 11.81.420. However, none of these exceptions applies to Haggren’s case.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.420(b)(1) — 1 case
Haggren v. State, 829 P.2d 842 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “AS 11.81.420. However, none of these exceptions applies to Haggren’s case.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.420(b)(2) — 1 case
Vaden v. State, 742 P.2d 784 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “Judge Coats may be suggesting, in dicta, that Snell's action might have been excusable under AS 11.81.420. [1] The applicability of this section has not been briefed, and I have grave reservations regarding the question.”
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.