intelligent waiver in Alaska

2017Holdings, Inc., 323 P.3d 1131 , 1139 n.22 (Alaska 2014) (“To rise to the level of plain error, the error . . . cannot be the result of an intelligent waiver or a strategic decision not to object.” (citing Khan v. State, 278 P.3d 893, 900 (Alaska 2012))). 18 The siblings also argue that any error in omitting the Washington property from the estate was invited by Charles.

2014See Khan v. State, 278 P.3d 893, 900 (Alaska 2012) ("[In order for a court to find plain error, (1) the error must not be the result of an intelligent waiver or a strategic decision not to object; (2) the error must affect substantial rights; (3) the error must be obvious; and (4) the error must be prejudicial.") (quoting Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 771 (Alaska 2011)).

2023As we have explained, because such commitment complies with the test set out in Jackson, the statute does not run afoul of the due process requirements of the federal constitution.60 58 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 773 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a plain error is an obvious error which did not result from an intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object, affected substantial rights, and resulted in prejudice). 59 See, e.g., Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Alaska 2007), overruled on unrelated grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 (Alaska 2019). 60 See Jac

2014See Khan v. State, 278 P.3d 893, 900 (Alaska 2012) ("[In order for a court to find plain error, (1) the error must not be the result of an intelligent waiver or a strategic decision not to object; (2) the error must affect substantial rights; (3) the error must be obvious; and (4) the error must be prejudicial.") (quoting Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 771 (Alaska 2011)).

1980The responsibility of the arraignment judge here would have been satisfied by an additional sentence or two clarifying O'Dell's answer and assuring an intelligent waiver. 576 P.2d at 108 (footnotes omitted). [5] We note that the 1980 Alaska Magistrate's checklist for misdemeanor arraignment has an extensive suggested procedure to be followed if an accused wants to waive his right to an attorney.

1980The responsibility of the arraignment judge here would have been satisfied by an additional sentence or two clarifying O'Dell's answer and assuring an intelligent waiver. 576 P.2d at 108 (footnote omitted).

2023As we have explained, because such commitment complies with the test set out in Jackson, the statute does not run afoul of the due process requirements of the federal constitution.60 58 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 773 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a plain error is an obvious error which did not result from an intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object, affected substantial rights, and resulted in prejudice). 59 See, e.g., Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Alaska 2007), overruled on unrelated grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 (Alaska 2019). 60 See Jac

2023As we have explained, because such commitment complies with the test set out in Jackson, the statute does not run afoul of the due process requirements of the federal constitution.60 58 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 773 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a plain error is an obvious error which did not result from an intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object, affected substantial rights, and resulted in prejudice). 59 See, e.g., Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Alaska 2007), overruled on unrelated grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 (Alaska 2019). 60 See Jac

2023As we have explained, because such commitment complies with the test set out in Jackson, the statute does not run afoul of the due process requirements of the federal constitution.60 58 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 773 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a plain error is an obvious error which did not result from an intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object, affected substantial rights, and resulted in prejudice). 59 See, e.g., Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Alaska 2007), overruled on unrelated grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 (Alaska 2019). 60 See Jac

2023As we have explained, because such commitment complies with the test set out in Jackson, the statute does not run afoul of the due process requirements of the federal constitution.60 58 Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758, 773 (Alaska 2011) (holding that a plain error is an obvious error which did not result from an intelligent waiver or a tactical decision not to object, affected substantial rights, and resulted in prejudice). 59 See, e.g., Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Alaska 2007), overruled on unrelated grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 (Alaska 2019). 60 See Jac

2017“Invited error ‘occurs when the court takes erroneous action at the express request of [a party], and then [that party] urges reversal on that basis on appeal.’ ” Roderer v. Dash, 233 P.3d 1101, 1114 (Alaska 2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559 , 568 n.10 (Alaska App. 1989)).

2016Wilson v. MacDonald, 168 P.3d 887 , 889 n. 10 (Alaska 2007) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) ("It is reasonably clear ... that waivers of counsel must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and «circumstances surrounding +that case....'" (quoting Johnson v.

2016Wilson v. MacDonald, 168 P.3d 887 , 889 n. 10 (Alaska 2007) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) ("It is reasonably clear ... that waivers of counsel must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and «circumstances surrounding +that case....'" (quoting Johnson v.

2016Wilson v. MacDonald, 168 P.3d 887 , 889 n. 10 (Alaska 2007) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) ("It is reasonably clear ... that waivers of counsel must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and «circumstances surrounding +that case....'" (quoting Johnson v.

2016Wilson v. MacDonald, 168 P.3d 887 , 889 n. 10 (Alaska 2007) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) ("It is reasonably clear ... that waivers of counsel must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and «circumstances surrounding +that case....'" (quoting Johnson v.

1981In support of its position, the state relies on Davis v. State, 501 P.2d 1026, 1028-31 (Alaska 1972), and Hammonds v. State, 442 P.2d 39, 43 (Alaska 1968).

1981In support of its position, the state relies on Davis v. State, 501 P.2d 1026, 1028-31 (Alaska 1972), and Hammonds v. State, 442 P.2d 39, 43 (Alaska 1968).