Hawley v. State (1980)

Even assuming that the existence of a conspiracy between Williamson and Orth had been independently established by a preponderance of the evidence, see Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1355 (Alaska 1980); Amidon v. State, 565 P.2d 1248, 1259 (Alaska 1977), it is difficult to conceive how Orth could be found to be advancing the purpose of the joint undertaking by casually divulging it to witnesses.

Alaska R.Crim.P. 47(b) provides: "Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." [29] See Covington II, 711 P.2d at 1185 (citing Van Hatten v. State, 666 P.2d 1047, 1056-57 (Alaska App.1983)). [30] See id. at 1184 (citing Covington I, 703 P.2d at 441 ). [31] Id. at 1185. [32] See id. [33] See id. [34] Id. [35] See id. [36] See Covington II, 711 P.2d at 1185 ; Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 630-…

Because he said "I talked about Chris from Barrow and that was a sexual matter." NOTES [1] On appeal, Worthy does not dispute T.J.S.'s testimony or characterization of his statements regarding Chris. [2] See Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). [3] See Shane v. Rhines, 672 P.2d 895 , 898 n. 2 (Alaska 1983) ("[E]vidence which is offered to contradict a collateral matter is inadmissible, whether or not the matter was brought out on direct."). [4] 519 P.2d 452 (A…

NOTES [1] AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(A) and (a)(5). [2] AS 11.61.195. [3] AS 11.61.200(a)(6). [4] See Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). [5] Criminal Rule 16(b)(1)(B) provides: (B) Expert Witnesses.

Co., 879 F.Supp. 1078, 1086-87 (D.Kan.1995) (excluding expert testimony because it was devoid of a meaningful and factual basis for weighing the factors involved in the design of a product in defective design case), aff'd, 91 F.3d 1410 (10th Cir.1996); Richardson v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1236 , 1239-41 & n. 1 (E.D.Wash.1993) (excluding testimony of automobile accident reconstructionists because their computations lacked fixed factors based on on-the-scene measurements a…

He reasons that, under Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1368 (Alaska 1980), even a statement admissible under a firmly rooted exception will violate the confrontation clause unless the court independently finds that the statement is “sufficiently reliable” to justify its admission.

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Alaska Northern Development, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, 666 P.2d 33, 42 (Alaska 1983); Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Dyer v. State, 666 P.2d 438, 451 (Alaska App. 1983).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1354-55 (Alaska 1980); Adams v. State, 706 P.2d 1183 , 1187 n. 3 (Alaska App. 1985).

Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 88-89 , 91 S.Ct. 210, 219-220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213, 227 (1970) (plurality opinion), cited in Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1358-59 (Alaska 1980).

"The admissibility of evidence is largely within the trial court's discretion and its rulings will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion." Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Poulin v. Zartman, 542 P.2d 251, 260 (Alaska 1975).

Legion Spenard Post No. 28, 119 P.3d 996, 1001 (Alaska 2005) (citing Genaro v. Municipality of Anchorage, 76 P.3d 844, 845 (Alaska 2003)). [4] Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980) (citing Poulin v. Zartman, 542 P.2d 251, 260 (Alaska 1975), on rehearing, 548 P.2d 1299 (Alaska 1976), overruled on other grounds by State v. Alex, 646 P.2d 203 , 208 n. 4 (Alaska 1982)). [5] Tybus v. Holland, 989 P.2d 1281, 1285 (Alaska 1999) ("We will not consider arguments that par…

Bluel v. State, 153 P.3d 982, 986 (Alaska 2007); Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). 4 .

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). 10 .

Dev., Div. of Ins. v. Schnell, 8 P.3d 351, 359 (Alaska 2000) (determination of whether action is barred by res judicata is question of law); Jenkins v. Daniels, 751 P.2d 19, 21 (Alaska 1988) (determination of which statute of limitations applies is question of law). [10] John's Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1031 (Alaska 2002). [11] Dodson v. Dodson, 955 P.2d 902, 905 (Alaska 1998). [12] Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). [13] Landers v. Municipality o…

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). 2 .

I, § 11; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1623 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 , 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1707 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987); Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1358 (Alaska 1980). 44 . 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). 45 .

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

“The admissibility of evidence is largely within the trial court’s discretion and its rulings will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); M.R.S. v. State, 897 P.2d 63, 66 (Alaska 1995).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Gamer v. State, 711 P.2d 1191, 1195 (Alaska App.1986).

DISCUSSION "The admissibility of evidence is largely within the trial court's discretion and its rulings will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion." Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

DISCUSSION “The admissibility of evidence is largely within the trial court’s discretion and its rulings will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

In Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1360-61 (Alaska 1980), the supreme court discussed the application of Criminal Rule 25(d) in a case with multiple defendants: [Wjhere there are several defendants in a criminal trial, each individual defendant is not entitled to one peremptory challenge, but rather the defense as a whole is entitled, as a matter of right, to but one peremptory challenge.

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Bodine v. State, 737 P.2d 1072, 1073-74 (Alaska App. 1987).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Lipscomb v. State, 700 P.2d 1298, 1306 (Alaska App.1985). 11 B.

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Bodine v. State, 737 P.2d 1072, 1073-74 (Alaska App.1987).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Grasle, Inc., 816 P.2d 1343 , 1349 n. 11 (Alaska 1991); Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); In re A.S.W, 834 P.2d 801 , 803 n. 3 (Alaska 1992). .

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d 801 , 803 n. 3 (Alaska 1992). [6] We emphasize that a child's lack of memory should not be confused with the child's competency to testify.

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349,1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). .Evidence Rule 804(b)(5) (declarant unavailability required) provides, in part, that an out-of-court statement is admissible if it is: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it …

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). [4] Evidence Rule 804(b)(5) (declarant unavailability required) provides, in part, that an out-of-court statement is admissible if it is: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which …

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980). (d) The trial court erred in denying Howell’s motion for a stay of proceedings.

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1354 (Alaska 1980); Adams v. State, 706 P.2d 1183 , 1187 n. 3 (Alaska App.1985).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Eben v. State, 599 P.2d 700, 710 (Alaska 1979).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Judge Shortell did not abuse his discretion in admitting this evidence. 2 Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799, 806 (Alaska App.1985).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Lipscomb v. State, 700 P.2d 1298, 1306 (Alaska App. 1985).

Id.; Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law, § 61, at 453 (1972); Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1354-55 (Alaska 1980) (the existence of the conspiracy must be shown without relying on the alleged co-conspirator statements sought to be admitted); (2) that the statement was made while the conspiracy was continuing; and (3) that the statement was made "in furtherance" of the conspiracy.

Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).

“The admissibility of evidence is largely within the trial court’s discretion and its rulings will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980).