State v. Hannagan (1977)

Title 12 of Alaska’s Code of Criminal Procedure (where the Act’s registration provisions are located) contains many provisions that do not involve criminal punishment, such as civil procedures for disposing of recovered and seized property, Alaska Stat. § 12.36.010 et seq. (2000); laws protecting the confidentiality of victims and witnesses, § 12.61.010 et seq.; laws governing the security and accuracy of criminal justice information, §12.62.110 et seq.; laws governing civil…

See id. at 285 . [35] See Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986). [36] 372 P.2d 785 (Alaska 1962). [37] See id. at 787-88 . [38] Id. at 790 . [39] See, e.g., International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 , 827 n. 2, 114 S.Ct. 2552 , 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994) (holding that, when the contempt is committed in the presence of the court, the court may dispense with usual due process requirements and immediately and …

See Dixon v. State, 605 P.2d 882, 884 (Alaska 1980); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1977).

See also State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1066 (Alaska 1977) ("There is no allegation here that there was communication between the court and the jury without counsel for both sides present.") The commentary to section 5.2(a) of the ABA Standards Relating to Trial by Jury, note 9 supra, recognizes the common requirement that the defendant be present, but notes that section 5.2(a) requires notice to both the prosecutor and defense counsel and "takes no view as to whether it …

State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1062-63 (Alaska 1977); Merrill v. State, 457 P.2d 231, 234 (Alaska 1969); Alaska R.Crim.P. 35(h).

I, § VII; United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 , 105 S.Ct 1482 , 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (stating that the right to be present at trial "is protected by the Due Process Clause in some situations where the defendant is not actually confronting witnesses or evidence against him"); Wamser v. State, 652 P.2d 98 , 101 n. 10 (Alaska 1982) ("[In Alaska the right to be present is founded on the state constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to confront the witness…

In Hannagan the judge and both counsel were present when the in-court clerk replayed the requested testimony for the jury. 559 P.2d at 1061, 1066 .

Although we have held that violations of Criminal Rule 38 must meet the stricter constitutional standard of harmless error, Meyer v. State, 627 P.2d 636, 639 (Alaska 1981); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977), we decline to hold that the same beyond a reasonable doubt standards must be applied to violations of Rule 22.

In State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1064 (Alaska 1977), we stated that: “[Tjhere is a constitutional requirement that the defendant personally waive his right to be present at trial in a knowing and intelligent manner.

Id. at 1063, 1065 .

See Thomas v. State, 566 P.2d 630 , 639 n. 34 (Alaska 1977); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1062-63 (Alaska 1977).

See Braham v. State, 571 P.2d 631, 645 (Alaska 1977); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977); Evans v. State, 550 P.2d 830, 840-41 (Alaska 1976). [2] Assuming, without deciding, that the challenged testimony was improper, we do not find upon reviewing the record that the statements were deliberately elicited to abort the trial so that prosecutorial misconduct would bar a second trial.

State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977). .

See also, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 187, 190-93 (C.C.Va. 1807) (No. 14,694). [21] See also, Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 372, 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 , 776 (1911). [22] United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). [23] Sosa v. State, 215 So.2d 736, 740-41 (Fla. 1968) (federal compulsory process clause allows defendant access to prosecution witnesses' statements); State v. Lerner, 112 R.I. 62 , 308 A.2d 324, 335 (1973) (…

We agree that reversal would clearly be required if Clarke had been denied his right to an in-person allocution, but we are not convinced that, because Clarke was able to allocute in person, he was not prejudiced by what occurred here.26 As we have previously explained, a defendant’s right to be present at sentencing is intended to promote “the perception and reality of fairness in the trial process.”27 In Henry v. State, we emphasized the importance of face-to-face interact…

See Wamser, 652 P.2d at 103 ; Dixon, 605 P.2d at 884 ; State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 13 .

I, §§ 7, 11; State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1977). .

Ed. 2d 334 (2005); Shewfelt v. Alaska, 228 F.3d 1088, 1090-92 (9th Cir. 2000); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063-66 (Alaska 1977); People v. Auman, 67 P.3d 741, 765-66 (Colo. App. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 109 P.3d 647 (Colo. 2005); Key v. State, 760 So. 2d 278, 278-79 (Fla App.), review denied, 779 So. 2d 271 (Fla 2000).

See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934); Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 , 32 S.Ct. 250 , 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912); Wamser v. State, 652 P.2d 98 , 101 n. 10 (Alaska 1982); Dixon v. State, 605 P.2d 882, 884 (Alaska 1980); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1977); Noffke v. State, 422 P.2d 102, 104 (Alaska 1967); Crouse v. Anchorage, 79 P.3d 660,…

See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Wamser v. State, 652 P.2d 98, 101 (Alaska 1982); Dixon v. State, 605 P.2d 882, 884 (Alaska 1980); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1977); see also Alaska R.Crim.

See Cox v. State, 575 P.2d 297, 300 (Alaska 1978) (holding judge's ex parte communication through bailiff regarding jury's playback request was constitutional error); Richardson v. State, 579 P.2d at 1372, 1374 (Alaska 1978) (playback of testimony without presence of parties or judge and without notifying parties was error); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977) (error to permit playback of testimony in defendant's absence without express waiver by defendant).…

Fon tanez, 878 F.2d at 37 (quoting United States v. Toliver, 541 F.2d 958, 965 (2nd Cir.1976)); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977).

In State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1064 (Alaska 1977), the court held that Criminal Rule 38(a) guarantees a defendant the right to be present when testimony is played. back to the jury, even though the court also indicated that, under normal circumstances, the error would be harmless since no evidence is taken and nothing is litigated at jury playbacks.

Hensel v. State, 604 P.2d 222 , 229 n. 22 (Alaska 1979); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1062 (Alaska 1977); Bishop, 685 P.2d at 107 .

State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1062-63 (Alaska 1977).

They argue that since proceedings under Criminal Rule 35 are civil and not criminal in nature, see Hensel v. State, 604 P.2d 222, 230-31 (Alaska 1979); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1062-63 (Alaska 1977), section 24 and not section 23 governs the applicability of AS 12.55.088.

Chapman v. California, 368 U.S. 18 , 23-24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 (1967), reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977).

In State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1977), we noted the common law origins of the defendant’s right to be present at trial and the constitutional dimension of this right.

State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977).

Kimoktoak raises a second issue in his brief with regard to the court’s failure to secure his presence in the courtroom when the court heard arguments by counsel on (1) whether the jury could hear a replay of the officer’s testimony and (2) whether the jury would be allowed to separate once deliberations had begun. 5 Defendant’s presence was plainly required in both instances by Criminal Rule 38. 6 State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1064 (Alaska 1977); Gafford v. State, 440 P…

See State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1062 (Alaska 1977) (holding that state has right to appeal in post-conviction relief proceeding because such proceedings are separate from original criminal proceeding and are governed by civil procedure).

See, e.g., State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1977) (construing the predecessor to current Criminal Rule 35(c)).

See State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977); Evans v. State, 550 P.2d 830, 840 (Alaska 1976). [18] T.F. testified that she was hitchhiking in the Mountain View Drive area of Anchorage, and in particular stated: Q.

See State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1063-65 (Alaska 1977). 6 .

See, e.g., Meyer v. State, 627 P.2d 636 , 639 n. 4 (Alaska 1981) (violation of Rule 38 resulting from defendant’s absence at required hearing was harmless where his presence could have had no impact on the decisional process, quoting State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059 , 1065-66 n. 20 (Alaska 1977)).

See, e. g., State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059 (Alaska 1977) (state may appeal adverse determination of a Rule 35 proceeding).