State v. Dunlop (1986)

State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986) (quoting State v. Souter, 606 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1980)).

State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986) (quoting State v. Souter, 606 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1980), overruled on other grounds by Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 610 (internal quotation marks omitted)). .

Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 608-09 (first emphasis added; second emphasis in the original) (footnotes omitted).

Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 609 (emphasis in the original).

See id. at 609 (“In cases of manslaughter or assault, the conduct prohibited is the killing or injuring of a person.

The Anchorage Assembly created the crime of family violence in 2000.24 The new crime was part of a package of offenses aimed specifically at redrafting the child abuse ordinances.25 Other offenses enacted or amended by the same ordinance included the offense of child abuse,26 child neglect,27 and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.28 22 Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 609 (emphasis in original). 23 Id.

See, eg., Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302, 306, 308, 312 (Alaska 1970) (asking first whether the legislature intended to prescribe multiple crimes for the defendant's behavior but then engaging in an independent determination of whether such multiplicity of punishment violates the state constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy); see also State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 606 (Alaska 1986) ("We must first determine both the legislature's intent in authorizing multiple senten…

Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173, 1175-76 (Alaska 1993) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986)). 14 . 423 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1967). 15 .

Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 177 P.3d 1181, 1184 (Alaska 2008). [13] Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173, 1175-76 (Alaska 1993) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986)). [14] 423 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1967). [15] Id. at 283 . [16] Id. [17] Id. at 284 . [18] Id. at 283-84 (citations omitted). [19] Former AS 22.05.010 (1976), repealed by ch. 12, § 2, SLA 1980. [20] AS 22.07.010, .020, enacted by ch. 12, § 1, SLA 1980. [21] AS 22.05.010. …

We overrule our decisions only when "clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent." State v. Fremgen, 914 P.2d 1244, 1245 (Alaska 1996) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) ("The stare decisis doctrin…

Nonetheless the assault taken as a whole was described as an "incident." Id. at 990 . [7] Id. [8] Id. [9] Id. at 989-90 . [10] Id. at 989 . [11] 950 P.2d 580 (Alaska App.1997). [12] Id. at 584 (brackets in original, emphasis omitted) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609 (Alaska 1986)). [13] 63 P.3d 1009, 1011 (Alaska 2003). [14] Brief of Appellee at 14-15, Kodiak Island Borough v. Roe, 63 P.3d 1009 (Alaska 2003). [15] 63 P.3d at 1016 . [16] Id. at 1016 n. 28. [17] Eva…

Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 609 (italics omitted).

And this Court similarly did not affirm the superior court’s order on that basis.71 Rather, we affirmed the superior court’s order because we determined — as had the superior court — that the facts alleged in Allen’s application, if assumed to be true, failed to state a prima facie case of attorney incompetence.72 Thus, Allen’s discussion pertaining to Criminal Rule 35.1(d) is dicta, and this Court does not need to overrule it in order to correct it.73 But if it were necessa…

A factual and legal determination supporting this finding must be made on the record. 23 State v. Fremgen, 914 P.2d 1244, 1245 (Alaska 1996) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986)). 24 See State v. David N.J., 19 A.3d 646 , 669 n.34 (Conn. 2011) (declining to consider defendant’s arguments that a prior case was wrongly decided “in the absence of adequate briefing addressing the stare decisis considerations attendant to overruling” that case). 25 Anderson, …

At the end of the Commentary to Rule 106 is a “Note” explaining that the drafters of Alaska’s rule — the Alaska Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence — “voted to adopt, in lieu of the Reporter’s Comment to this rule, the commentary contained in the Advisory Committee’s note to Federal Rule 106[.]”82 In other words, the drafters of the 80 See State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986) (stating that a court may depart from precedent when the court i…

Thus, King himself is eligible for good time credit — but, since July 2013, defendants in his situation have not been eligible for good time credit. 7 See, e.g., Martin v. State, 664 P.2d 612, 619 (Alaska App. 1983); Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction No. 1.49. 8 See Thessen v. State, 508 P.2d 1192, 1197 (Alaska 1973) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609 (Alaska 1986)); Nell v. State, 642 P.2d 1361 , 1368–69 (Alaska App. 1982). 9 See AS 12.…

State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986). 10 .

State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986). 76 .

Erickson v. State, 950 P.2d 580, 587 (Alaska App.1997) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986)). .

State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 608 (Alaska 1986). .

Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173, 1176 (Alaska 1993) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986). . 515 P.2d 382 (Alaska 1973). .

Co. v. Teel, 100 P.3d 2, 3-4 (Alaska 2004) (concluding that a mother's emotional distress was "because of" the bodily injury suffered by her son, and thus, satisfied the requirements for separate per-person coverage under a policy that defined an "insured person" as someone who is legally entitled to recover damages "because of bodily injury to [the insured], a resident relative, or an occupant of [the insured's] auto with [the insured's] permission" (italics omitted)). [26]…

Erickson v. State, 950 P.2d 580, 587 (Alaska App.1997) (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986)).

See id. ¶¶ 7-9 (citing State v. Senna, 154 Vt. 343, 346-47 , 575 A.2d 200, 202 (1990) (kidnapping); State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609 (Alaska 1986) (vehicular manslaughter); State v. Rabe, 96 Wis.2d 48 , 291 N.W.2d 809, 822 (1980) (homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle)). ¶ 56.

See id. ¶¶ 7-9 (citing State v. Senna, 154 Vt. 343, 346-47 , 575 A.2d 200, 202 (1990) (kidnapping); State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609 (Alaska 1986) (vehicular manslaughter); State v. Rabe, 291 N.W.2d 809, 822 (Wis. 1980) (homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle)). ¶ 56.

In general, this court "do[es] not lightly overrule [its] past decisions." State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986); see also Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) ("The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: `no judicial system could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.'") (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993)). [3]…

Id. at 1176 (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986)). 50 .

Safety v. Conley, 754 P.2d 232, 233-36 (Alaska 1988); State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986).

Safety v. Conley, 754 P.2d 232, 233-36 (Alaska 1988); State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986).

Id. at 610 (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Souter, 606 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1980)).

Hathaway recognizes that his argument is foreclosed by State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609 (Alaska 1986), where the supreme court stated: When several deaths or injuries occur in the course of a single incident, the offense prohibited by the statute has been violated several times over.

In balancing these interests, we will overrule a prior decision only when “ ‘clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent’ _” State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986) (quoting State v. Souter, 606 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1980)).

Thus, stare decisis is a practical, flexible command that balances our community’s competing interests in the stability of legal norms and the need to adapt those norms to society’s changing demands. 4 In balanc *1176 ing these interests, we will overrule a prior decision only when “ ‘clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent’_” State …

Cf. State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986) (It is forseeable that driving while intoxicated poses a substantial risk of causing multiple deaths.

See, e.g., McKinney v. State, 511 So.2d 220, 223 (Ala.1987); State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 607-608 (Alas.1986); Kinsey v. State, 290 Ark. 4 , 716 S.W.2d 188, 190 (1986); State v. Miranda, 3 Ariz.App. 550, 557 , 416 P.2d 444, 451 (1966); Wilkoff v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 345, 351 , 696 P.2d 134, 139 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 742, 747 (1985); State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530 , 482 A.2d 300, 319 (1984); State v. McFadden, 320 N. W.2d 608, 617-618 (Iowa 1982); Savoy v. State, 67 Md.App…

See State v. Gibson, 543 P.2d 406, 408 (Alaska 1975), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986). 88 .

See State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986) (a defendant who kills or injures two or more people by a single reckless act commits a separately punishable homicide or assault upon each victim); Cooper v. State, 595 P.2d 648 (Alaska 1979) (a defendant who threatens or terrorizes two or more people by a single assaultive act commits a separately punishable assault upon each victim).

See State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 607 (Alaska 1986).

Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.402 at 164-55 (1974)) (other citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986); see also Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 620 .

See, e.g., State v. Dunlap, 721 P.2d 604, 608-09 (Alaska 1986); Mead v. State, 489 P.2d 738, 743 (Alaska 1971).

See State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 607-08 (Alaska 1986).

See State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 607-08 (Alaska 1986).[ 8 ] Davis thus cited State v. Dunlop rather than Whitton.

See Pratt & Whitney Can., Inc. v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173, 1176 (Alaska 1993) ("[We will overrule a prior decision only when 'clearly convinced [that] the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent' ...." (quoting State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986))). . 996 P.2d 1216 (Alaska 2000). .

See Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 609-610 ; Cooper v. State, 595 P.2d 648, 650 (Alaska 1979) (upholding separate assault convictions when a defendant's threatening conduct with a weapon placed three people in fear of imminent serious injury).

Compare State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609 (Alaska 1986), where the supreme court held that a single act of reckless driving can support multiple convictions for homicide and assault when more than one victim is killed or injured; and Cooper v. State, 595 P.2d 648, 649 (Alaska 1979), where the supreme court held that the act of firing one shot toward three people will support three convictions for assault.

See generally State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609 (Alaska 1986). {21} We are persuaded by the reasoning behind these opinions and conclude that this approach is consistent with our statute and New Mexico law generally. {22} First, it is an obvious point to note that the implicated provision’s title is “Homicide by vehicle; great bodily injury by vehicle.” Section 66-8-101.

See State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 610 (Alaska 1986) (serious injuries are foreseeable risk of drunk driving); Brown v. Anchorage, 764 P.2d 322 (Alaska App.1988) (upholding sentence of 360 days with 240 days suspended; although causing injury to another person is not an element of DWI, it was a foreseeable result of the conduct and aggravates the offense).

See Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 610 ; McFadden, 320 N.W.2d at 618 ; Irvin, 603 S.W.2d at 124 ; Myers, 298 S.E.2d at 816 .

See generally State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986) (majority of states have held that multiple punishments for multiple victims of single criminal act do not violate double jeopardy).

See generally State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 609-10 (Alaska 1986).