Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.50.101 (2026)
Immunity of witnesses
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.50.101. Immunity of witnesses.
Article 3. Temporary Detention and Identification of Persons.
(a) If a witness refuses, on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a criminal proceeding before or ancillary to a court or grand jury of this state, and a judge issues an order under (b) of this section, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination. If the witness fully complies with the order, the witness may not be prosecuted for an offense about which the witness is compelled to testify, except in a prosecution based on perjury, giving a false statement or otherwise knowingly providing false information, or hindering prosecution.
(b) In the case of an individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information in a criminal proceeding before or ancillary to a court or a grand jury of this state, a superior or district court for the judicial district in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue, upon the application of the attorney general or the attorney general's designee in accordance with (d) of this section, an order requiring the individual to give testimony or provide other information that the individual refuses to give or provide based on the privilege against self-incrimination.
(c) An order issued under (b) of this section is effective when communicated to the individual specified in the order.
(d) The attorney general or the attorney general's designee may apply for an order under (b) of this section when, in the judgment of the attorney general or the attorney general's designee,
(1) the testimony or other information may be necessary to the administration of criminal justice; and
(2) the individual who is the subject of the application has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or to provide other information on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination.
(e) If a witness refuses, or there is reason to believe the witness will refuse, to testify or provide other information based on the privilege against self-incrimination, and if the attorney general or the attorney general's designee has not applied for an order under (b) of this section, the court shall inform the witness of the right to be represented by an attorney, and that an attorney will be appointed for the witness if the witness qualifies for counsel under AS 18.85. The court shall recess the proceeding to allow the witness to consult with the attorney for the witness.
(f) If the attorney general or the attorney general's designee declines to seek an order under (b) of this section after the witness has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney, and the witness continues to refuse to testify or provide other information, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the validity of the claim of privilege by the witness. The hearing shall be in camera.
(g) At the hearing under (f) of this section, the attorney for the witness, in the form of a proffer, shall describe the testimony or other information that the witness claims is privileged. The proffer must include a description of how the testimony or other information could connect the witness with a crime. The proffer is privileged and inadmissible for any other purpose. If the proffer establishes a factual basis that there is a real or substantial danger that the testimony or other information to be compelled would support a conviction or would furnish a link in the chain of evidence leading to conviction for a crime, the court may find that the witness has a valid claim of privilege.
(h) If the court finds that the witness has a valid claim of privilege, it shall advise an attorney designated by the attorney general of that finding and inform the attorney of the category or categories of offense to which the privilege applies: a higher-level felony, a lower-level felony, or a misdemeanor. If the designated attorney decides that granting immunity to the witness is appropriate, the designated attorney shall inform the prosecution of that decision, and shall deliver or cause to be delivered a letter to the witness, or an attorney for the witness, granting immunity to the witness. The designated attorney may not disclose the category of offense to anyone.
(i) In this section,
(1) “higher-level felony” means an unclassified or class A felony;
(2) “lower-level felony” means a class B or class C felony;
(3) “other information” means books, papers, documents, records, recordings, or other similar material;
(4) “proffer” means a written or oral statement by the attorney for the witness, stating the attorney's good faith belief of the substance of the witness's testimony or other information.
(a) If a witness refuses, on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a criminal proceeding before or ancillary to a court or grand jury of this state, and a judge issues an order under (b) of this section, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination. If the witness fully complies with the order, the witness may not be prosecuted for an offense about which the witness is compelled to testify, except in a prosecution based on perjury, giving a false statement or otherwise knowingly providing false information, or hindering prosecution.
(b) In the case of an individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information in a criminal proceeding before or ancillary to a court or a grand jury of this state, a superior or district court for the judicial district in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue, upon the application of the attorney general or the attorney general's designee in accordance with (d) of this section, an order requiring the individual to give testimony or provide other information that the individual refuses to give or provide based on the privilege against self-incrimination.
(c) An order issued under (b) of this section is effective when communicated to the individual specified in the order.
(d) The attorney general or the attorney general's designee may apply for an order under (b) of this section when, in the judgment of the attorney general or the attorney general's designee,
(1) the testimony or other information may be necessary to the administration of criminal justice; and
(2) the individual who is the subject of the application has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or to provide other information on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination.
(e) If a witness refuses, or there is reason to believe the witness will refuse, to testify or provide other information based on the privilege against self-incrimination, and if the attorney general or the attorney general's designee has not applied for an order under (b) of this section, the court shall inform the witness of the right to be represented by an attorney, and that an attorney will be appointed for the witness if the witness qualifies for counsel under AS 18.85. The court shall recess the proceeding to allow the witness to consult with the attorney for the witness.
(f) If the attorney general or the attorney general's designee declines to seek an order under (b) of this section after the witness has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney, and the witness continues to refuse to testify or provide other information, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the validity of the claim of privilege by the witness. The hearing shall be in camera.
(g) At the hearing under (f) of this section, the attorney for the witness, in the form of a proffer, shall describe the testimony or other information that the witness claims is privileged. The proffer must include a description of how the testimony or other information could connect the witness with a crime. The proffer is privileged and inadmissible for any other purpose. If the proffer establishes a factual basis that there is a real or substantial danger that the testimony or other information to be compelled would support a conviction or would furnish a link in the chain of evidence leading to conviction for a crime, the court may find that the witness has a valid claim of privilege.
(h) If the court finds that the witness has a valid claim of privilege, it shall advise an attorney designated by the attorney general of that finding and inform the attorney of the category or categories of offense to which the privilege applies: a higher-level felony, a lower-level felony, or a misdemeanor. If the designated attorney decides that granting immunity to the witness is appropriate, the designated attorney shall inform the prosecution of that decision, and shall deliver or cause to be delivered a letter to the witness, or an attorney for the witness, granting immunity to the witness. The designated attorney may not disclose the category of offense to anyone.
(i) In this section,
(1) “higher-level felony” means an unclassified or class A felony;
(2) “lower-level felony” means a class B or class C felony;
(3) “other information” means books, papers, documents, records, recordings, or other similar material;
(4) “proffer” means a written or oral statement by the attorney for the witness, stating the attorney's good faith belief of the substance of the witness's testimony or other information.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1990–2014 · leading case: State v. Corbett, 286 P.3d 772 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Corbett, 286 P.3d 772 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “This case involves a witness who has been summoned to testify at a eriminal trial, and who has been granted immunity pursuant to AS 12.50.101. Despite this grant of immunity, the witness continues to assert that he can lawfully refuse to testify because of the privilege against…”
State v. Gonzalez, 853 P.2d 526 (Alaska 1993). “IMMUNITY AND THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION This case presents two issues: (1) What is the scope of the Alaska Constitution article I, section 9 privilege against self-incrimination? and (2) Does AS 12.50.101 provide immunity which adequately matches the protection of…”
State v. Gonzalez, 825 P.2d 920 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “In response to the Alaska Supreme Court’s apparent deference to the legislature, 4 the Alaska legislature, in 1982, *928 adopted Alaska’s witness immunity statute, AS 12.50.101, specifying use and derivative use as the applicable standard of immunity in Alaska.”
State v. Echols, 793 P.2d 1066 (Alaska Ct. App. 1990). “perjured herself in testimony at Echols' trial, it would not have been precluded from prosecuting her notwithstanding a grant of immunity under the terms of AS 12.50.101(a). It is difficult to see how the state would have been substantially prejudiced in pursuing those charges…”
O'Leary v. Superior Court, Third Jud. Dist., 816 P.2d 163 (Alaska 1991). “[32] See AS 12.50.101 (authorizing the use of statutory immunity in certain circumstances).”
State v. Finley, 337 P.3d 527 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014). “§ 6002 and AS 12.50.101. 3 . Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.50.101(a) — 4 cases
State v. Corbett, 286 P.3d 772 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “This case involves a witness who has been summoned to testify at a eriminal trial, and who has been granted immunity pursuant to AS 12.50.101. Despite this grant of immunity, the witness continues to assert that he can lawfully refuse to testify because of the privilege against…”
State v. Echols, 793 P.2d 1066 (Alaska Ct. App. 1990). “perjured herself in testimony at Echols' trial, it would not have been precluded from prosecuting her notwithstanding a grant of immunity under the terms of AS 12.50.101(a). It is difficult to see how the state would have been substantially prejudiced in pursuing those charges…”
State v. Gonzalez, 853 P.2d 526 (Alaska 1993). “IMMUNITY AND THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION This case presents two issues: (1) What is the scope of the Alaska Constitution article I, section 9 privilege against self-incrimination? and (2) Does AS 12.50.101 provide immunity which adequately matches the protection of…”
State v. Gonzalez, 825 P.2d 920 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “In response to the Alaska Supreme Court’s apparent deference to the legislature, 4 the Alaska legislature, in 1982, *928 adopted Alaska’s witness immunity statute, AS 12.50.101, specifying use and derivative use as the applicable standard of immunity in Alaska.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.50.101(b) — 1 case
State v. Echols, 793 P.2d 1066 (Alaska Ct. App. 1990). “perjured herself in testimony at Echols' trial, it would not have been precluded from prosecuting her notwithstanding a grant of immunity under the terms of AS 12.50.101(a). It is difficult to see how the state would have been substantially prejudiced in pursuing those charges…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.50.101(d)(1) — 1 case
State v. Echols, 793 P.2d 1066 (Alaska Ct. App. 1990). “perjured herself in testimony at Echols' trial, it would not have been precluded from prosecuting her notwithstanding a grant of immunity under the terms of AS 12.50.101(a). It is difficult to see how the state would have been substantially prejudiced in pursuing those charges…”
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.