Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.05.010 (2026)
Crime commenced outside state but consummated inside
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.05.010. Crime commenced outside state but consummated inside.
When the commission of a crime commenced outside the state is consummated inside the state, the defendant is liable to punishment in this state even though out of the state at the time of the commission of the crime charged, if the defendant consummated the crime through the intervention of an innocent or guilty agent, or by other means proceeding directly from the defendant.
When the commission of a crime commenced outside the state is consummated inside the state, the defendant is liable to punishment in this state even though out of the state at the time of the commission of the crime charged, if the defendant consummated the crime through the intervention of an innocent or guilty agent, or by other means proceeding directly from the defendant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1987–2018 · leading case: Wheat v. State, 734 P.2d 1007 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987).
Wheat v. State, 734 P.2d 1007 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “Criminal jurisdiction in Alaska is governed by AS 12.05.010, which provides: Crime commenced outside state but consummated inside.”
State v. Jack, 67 P.3d 673 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003). “[3] We discussed Alaska's statutory extension of criminal jurisdiction under AS 12.05.010 in Wheat v. State. [4] That statute provides: When the commission of a crime commenced outside the state is consummated inside the state, the defendant is liable to punishment in this state…”
Gregg v. Gregg, 776 P.2d 1041 (Alaska 1989). “1987) (custodial interference); see also AS 12.05.010 (Alaska may punish defendant for crime commenced outside state but consummated inside).”
Zuraff v. Reiger, 2018 ND 143 (N.D. 2018). “at 1044 (citing Alaska Stat. § 12.05.010 (1989) ; Wheat v.”
Pruitt v. City of Seward, 152 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2007). “The city's complaint alleged that Pruitt: (1) violated SCC § 12.05.010 by using and occupying the building without a certificate of occupancy; (2) intentionally violated the building code by constructing the canopy in violation of the building permit; (8) violated the city's…”
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.