Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
David v. Stategreen2 sentences2025According to Talmadge, this evidence was “clearly relevant to challenging jurisdiction, and had obvious value to an alibi defense or as impeachment evidence.” But, even reviewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the application, none of it actually contradicts C.B. or her mother’s testimony about when 14 “The question of whether a petition for post-conviction relief and its supporting documents adequately set forth a prima facie case for relief is a question of law.” David v. State, 372 P.3d 265, 269 (Alaska App. 2016). 2025This Court “reviews the superior court’s decision on this question de novo — i.e., without deference to the superior court’s conclusion.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Sam v. Stategreen1 sentence2003In Sam v. State, 842 P.2d 596, 599 (Alaska App.1992), this Court declared that we will not engage in the exercise of trying to ascertain potential prejudice to a defendant "in a purely hypothetical or abstract context". | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Stategreen1 sentence1984Wortham cites Ferguson v. State, 488 P.2d 1032, 1038-39 (Alaska 1971), where the court held that the trial court must give an alibi instruction where the issue is properly raised and the defendant requests the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Christie v. Stategreen1 sentence1982See Christie v. State, 580 P.2d 310, 314-15 (Alaska 1978) (there must be “some evidence” of insanity before the defendant is entitled to an insanity instruction); Warner v. State, 508 P.2d 525 (Alaska 1973) (trial court must give an alibi instruction where the facts support the request). | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Pearsongreen1 sentence1981State v. Skinner, 503 P.2d 381 (Kan.1972); People v. Pearson, 19 I11.2d 609, 169 N.E.2d 252, 255 (1960). 25 . | 1 | 1 |
Nathan L. Drew v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1978But when, as here, where identity is the major question (and it was accentuated by the alibi defense), similarities in the appearance of the attacker, plus time and place, the kinds of victims and the other methods of perpetrating the crimes mentioned above become quite relevant to a jury in deciding whether the identification made by the victims is accurate. [34] Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11 , 331 F.2d 85, 91-92 (1964), reversed a conviction on grounds of prejudice but nevertheless noted: [E]ven where the evidence would not have been admissible in separate trials, if, from the n 1978But when, as here, where identity is the major question (and it was accentuated by the alibi defense), similarities in the appearance of the attacker, plus time and place, the kinds of victims and the other methods of perpetrating the crimes mentioned above become quite relevant to a jury in deciding whether the identification made by the victims is accurate. [34] Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11 , 331 F.2d 85, 91-92 (1964), reversed a conviction on grounds of prejudice but nevertheless noted: [E]ven where the evidence would not have been admissible in separate trials, if, from the n | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. State
green
2 sentences1980He relies primarily on Scott v. State, 519 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1974), in which the defendant, charged with rape, challenged an order to produce names and addresses of all witnesses, to produce all written or recorded statements of witnesses, and to give advance notice to the prosecution of intent to rely on an alibi defense. 1980The Framers decided that the benefits to be derived from the kind of trial required by the Bill of Rights were well worth any loss in `efficiency' that resulted." [16] In Scott v. State, 519 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1974), we held that requiring a defendant to comply with a pre-trial discovery order to furnish the names and addresses of potential defense witnesses and certain information relating to the use of an alibi defense was violative of the accused's rights against compulsory self-incrimination under the Alaska Constitution. | 3 | 1980–1992 |
People v. Fritts
green
1 sentence1985State v. Roberts, 610 P.2d at 559 ; People v. Fritts, 140 Cal.Rptr. at 97 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1985State v. Roberts, 610 P.2d at 559 ; People v. Fritts, 140 Cal.Rptr. at 97 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Warner v. State
neutral
1 sentence1982See Christie v. State, 580 P.2d 310, 314-15 (Alaska 1978) (there must be “some evidence” of insanity before the defendant is entitled to an insanity instruction); Warner v. State, 508 P.2d 525 (Alaska 1973) (trial court must give an alibi instruction where the facts support the request). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Skinner
green
1 sentence1981State v. Skinner, 503 P.2d 381 (Kan.1972); People v. Pearson, 19 I11.2d 609, 169 N.E.2d 252, 255 (1960). 25 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
De Vita v. Sills
green
1 sentence1980In so holding, we note that "[o]ur form of government has imposed an extraordinary burden of proof upon the state in criminal litigations." Id. at 784 . [17] See DeVita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir.1970), where a defendant sought to postpone a state disbarment inquiry until after the disposition of criminal proceedings arising from the same alleged misconduct. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.