Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 12.40.100 (2026)

Contents of indictment

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 12.40.100. Contents of indictment.
(a) The indictment must be direct and certain as it regards
     (1) the party charged;

     (2) the crime charged; and

     (3) the particular circumstances of the crime charged when they are necessary to constitute a complete crime.

(b) The statement of the facts constituting the offense must be in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in a manner that will enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.

(c) An indictment that complies with this section and with applicable rules adopted by the supreme court is valid and need not specify aggravating factors set out in AS 12.55.155.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1968–2018 · leading case: State v. Dague, 143 P.3d 988 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Dague, 143 P.3d 988 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Recently, the legislature responded to Blakely — in particular, the suggestion that Blakely might be read to require grand jury indictment on aggravating factors — by adding a new subsection to AS 12.40.100, the statute that specifies the required contents of an indictment.”

Flores v. State, 443 P.2d 73 (Alaska 1968). · cites it 5× “” This rule further provides that, “It may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown * * Appellant seeks to escape the impact of this rule of pleading by arguing that the language of rule 7(c) is in conflict with the…”

Covington v. State, 703 P.2d 436 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “VI; see also AS 12.40.100; Alaska R.Crim.P. 7(c). 1 *439 Covington argues that the indictments must be sufficiently clear to avoid surprise as to the specific acts and specific dates upon which those acts occurred.”

Wassillie v. State, 411 P.3d 595 (Alaska 2018). “6 (Alaska 1980) ; see also AS 12.40.100(c) (stating that valid indictment is one that complies with requirements of this statutory provision and rules promulgated by Alaska Supreme Court); State v.”

Stewart v. State, 438 P.2d 387 (Alaska 1968). “” Counsel also informed the court that the purpose of his motion was to point out that the indictment did not meet the requirements of AS 12.40.100 and Criminal Rule 7(c). The trial court then denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.”

Spight v. State, 450 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1969). “*160 Since the indictment alleged the offense in the form approved by AS 12.40.100 and Criminal Rule 7(c), appellant’s argument that it was insufficient is without merit.”

Wassillie v. State (Alaska 2018). “6 (Alaska 1980); see also AS 12.40.100(c) (stating that valid indictment is one that complies with requirements of this statutory provision and rules promulgated by Alaska Supreme Court); State v.”

— Alaska Stat. § 12.40.100(a) — 2 cases

State v. Dague, 143 P.3d 988 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “Recently, the legislature responded to Blakely — in particular, the suggestion that Blakely might be read to require grand jury indictment on aggravating factors — by adding a new subsection to AS 12.40.100, the statute that specifies the required contents of an indictment.”

Flores v. State, 443 P.2d 73 (Alaska 1968). “” This rule further provides that, “It may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown * * Appellant seeks to escape the impact of this rule of pleading by arguing that the language of rule 7(c) is in conflict with the…”

— Alaska Stat. § 12.40.100(b) — 1 case

Flores v. State, 443 P.2d 73 (Alaska 1968). “” This rule further provides that, “It may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown * * Appellant seeks to escape the impact of this rule of pleading by arguing that the language of rule 7(c) is in conflict with the…”

— Alaska Stat. § 12.40.100(c) — 3 cases

State v. Dague, 143 P.3d 988 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “Recently, the legislature responded to Blakely — in particular, the suggestion that Blakely might be read to require grand jury indictment on aggravating factors — by adding a new subsection to AS 12.40.100, the statute that specifies the required contents of an indictment.”

Wassillie v. State, 411 P.3d 595 (Alaska 2018). “6 (Alaska 1980) ; see also AS 12.40.100(c) (stating that valid indictment is one that complies with requirements of this statutory provision and rules promulgated by Alaska Supreme Court); State v.”

Wassillie v. State (Alaska 2018). “6 (Alaska 1980); see also AS 12.40.100(c) (stating that valid indictment is one that complies with requirements of this statutory provision and rules promulgated by Alaska Supreme Court); State v.”

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.