result of intelligent waiver in Alaska

2025“Plain error is an error that (1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights; and (4) was prejudicial.” Id.

2023Thus, any error in placing the burden of proof on Williams was harmless.50 The superior court therefore did not err in concluding that the damages or loss stemming from Williams’s fraud related to day habilitation services was the full $734,799 she received. 48 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a defendant’s failure to object to an alleged error in the trial court requires the defendant to show plain error, which is “an error that (1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights;

2025Plain error is error that “(1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights; and (4) was prejudicial.”14 We do not find plain error here. 13 See, e.g., State v. Lindsay, 326 P.3d 125, 131-32 (Wash. 2014); Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548, 552 (Nev. 1991); State v. Crawford, 262 P.3d 1070, 1081-82 (Kan.

2025West v. Whitney-Fidalgo Seafoods, Inc., 628 P.2d 10, 18 (Alaska 1981) (“The burden of proving that the plaintiff has unreasonably failed to minimize damages falls upon the defendant.”). 44 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011). 45 U.S. Const. amend.

2025Plain error is error that “(1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights; and (4) was prejudicial.”14 We do not find plain error here. 13 See, e.g., State v. Lindsay, 326 P.3d 125, 131-32 (Wash. 2014); Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548, 552 (Nev. 1991); State v. Crawford, 262 P.3d 1070, 1081-82 (Kan.

2025Plain error is error that “(1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights; and (4) was prejudicial.”14 We do not find plain error here. 13 See, e.g., State v. Lindsay, 326 P.3d 125, 131-32 (Wash. 2014); Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548, 552 (Nev. 1991); State v. Crawford, 262 P.3d 1070, 1081-82 (Kan.

2024Special Condition No. 11 prohibits Cowan from knowingly having “any direct or indirect contact with a minor under 16 years of age, unless in the immediate presence of another adult who knows the circumstances of the crime.” The condition excludes Cowan’s biological children but only “at the discretion of the probation officer and treatment provider.” 27 State v. Ranstead, 421 P.3d 15, 23 (Alaska 2018) (citing Alaska R.

2023Thus, any error in placing the burden of proof on Williams was harmless.50 The superior court therefore did not err in concluding that the damages or loss stemming from Williams’s fraud related to day habilitation services was the full $734,799 she received. 48 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a defendant’s failure to object to an alleged error in the trial court requires the defendant to show plain error, which is “an error that (1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights;

2023Thus, any error in placing the burden of proof on Williams was harmless.50 The superior court therefore did not err in concluding that the damages or loss stemming from Williams’s fraud related to day habilitation services was the full $734,799 she received. 48 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a defendant’s failure to object to an alleged error in the trial court requires the defendant to show plain error, which is “an error that (1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights;

2023Thus, any error in placing the burden of proof on Williams was harmless.50 The superior court therefore did not err in concluding that the damages or loss stemming from Williams’s fraud related to day habilitation services was the full $734,799 she received. 48 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a defendant’s failure to object to an alleged error in the trial court requires the defendant to show plain error, which is “an error that (1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3) affected substantial rights;

2022Every court to address this legal issue — at least fifteen state courts and eleven federal circuit courts — has held that the Apprendi line of cases does not apply to indeterminate restitution statutes.21 A few of these courts have held that restitution does not offend Apprendi 19 See AS 11.46.120(a). 20 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011). 21 At the state level: See, e.g., State v. Arnett, 496 P.3d 928, 933-34 (Kan. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2868 (2022); People v. Chhoun, 480 P.3d 550, 590 (Cal. 2021); People v. Knapp, 487 P.3d 1243, 1260 (Colo. App. 2020); State v. Foum

2022Every court to address this legal issue — at least fifteen state courts and eleven federal circuit courts — has held that the Apprendi line of cases does not apply to indeterminate restitution statutes.21 A few of these courts have held that restitution does not offend Apprendi 19 See AS 11.46.120(a). 20 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011). 21 At the state level: See, e.g., State v. Arnett, 496 P.3d 928, 933-34 (Kan. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2868 (2022); People v. Chhoun, 480 P.3d 550, 590 (Cal. 2021); People v. Knapp, 487 P.3d 1243, 1260 (Colo. App. 2020); State v. Foum

2022Every court to address this legal issue — at least fifteen state courts and eleven federal circuit courts — has held that the Apprendi line of cases does not apply to indeterminate restitution statutes.21 A few of these courts have held that restitution does not offend Apprendi 19 See AS 11.46.120(a). 20 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011). 21 At the state level: See, e.g., State v. Arnett, 496 P.3d 928, 933-34 (Kan. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2868 (2022); People v. Chhoun, 480 P.3d 550, 590 (Cal. 2021); People v. Knapp, 487 P.3d 1243, 1260 (Colo. App. 2020); State v. Foum

2022Every court to address this legal issue — at least fifteen state courts and eleven federal circuit courts — has held that the Apprendi line of cases does not apply to indeterminate restitution statutes.21 A few of these courts have held that restitution does not offend Apprendi 19 See AS 11.46.120(a). 20 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011). 21 At the state level: See, e.g., State v. Arnett, 496 P.3d 928, 933-34 (Kan. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2868 (2022); People v. Chhoun, 480 P.3d 550, 590 (Cal. 2021); People v. Knapp, 487 P.3d 1243, 1260 (Colo. App. 2020); State v. Foum

2021Stacy’s argument that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction To convict Stacy of second-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stacy 20 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (recognizing that plain error “involv[es] such egregious conduct as to ‘undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial and contribute to a miscarriage of justice’” and requires a reviewing court to find that the error “(1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3

2021Stacy’s argument that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction To convict Stacy of second-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stacy 20 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (recognizing that plain error “involv[es] such egregious conduct as to ‘undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial and contribute to a miscarriage of justice’” and requires a reviewing court to find that the error “(1) was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object; (2) was obvious; (3

2019In order for the jury to have acquitted Farmer, they would have had to believe 16 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (to show plain error of non- constitutional magnitude, a defendant must show that (1) the failure to object was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical reason not to object, (2) the error was obvious, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error was prejudicial). 17 See Coffin v. State, 425 P.3d 172, 175 (Alaska App. 2018) (“As a general matter, jurors are presumed to follow the instructions that they are given[.]” (citing Whiteaker v.

2019In order for the jury to have acquitted Farmer, they would have had to believe 16 See Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 764 (Alaska 2011) (to show plain error of non- constitutional magnitude, a defendant must show that (1) the failure to object was not the result of intelligent waiver or a tactical reason not to object, (2) the error was obvious, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error was prejudicial). 17 See Coffin v. State, 425 P.3d 172, 175 (Alaska App. 2018) (“As a general matter, jurors are presumed to follow the instructions that they are given[.]” (citing Whiteaker v.