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.
9 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rollins v. Stategreen1 sentence2022The indictment charged that he had recklessly placed another person in 18 Phornasavanh v. State, 481 P.3d 1145, 1154 (Alaska App. 2021) (“[A]s a general matter, as long as the jury is properly instructed on the law, a trial court ‘has broad discretion to determine whether to give instructions specially tailored to the case at hand.’” (quoting Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395, 405 (Alaska 2016))). 19 See Rollins, 757 P.2d at 602-03 (holding that the trial court erred in giving a supplemental instruction on a lesser included offense after closing arguments because the defendant was entitled, under C | 1 | 1 |
Korakanh Phornsavanh v. State of Alaskagreen1 sentence2022The indictment charged that he had recklessly placed another person in 18 Phornasavanh v. State, 481 P.3d 1145, 1154 (Alaska App. 2021) (“[A]s a general matter, as long as the jury is properly instructed on the law, a trial court ‘has broad discretion to determine whether to give instructions specially tailored to the case at hand.’” (quoting Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395, 405 (Alaska 2016))). 19 See Rollins, 757 P.2d at 602-03 (holding that the trial court erred in giving a supplemental instruction on a lesser included offense after closing arguments because the defendant was entitled, under C | 1 | 1 |
Marquinn Jones-Nelson v. State of Alaskagreen2 sentences2022Where an error is not structural,69 the defendant must show that the error was prejudicial to obtain relief.70 If the error is a constitutional violation, it “will always affect substantial rights and will be prejudicial unless the State proves that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”71 Errors undermining the State’s burden to prove 68 Jones-Nelson v. State, 446 P.3d 797, 803-04 (Alaska App. 2019). 2022At a minimum, “force” includes “any bodily impact, restraint, or confinement or 27 Jones-Nelson v. State, 446 P.3d 797, 803-04 (Alaska App. 2019) (concluding that “when the supplemental instruction is read in conjunction with the other jury instructions on self-defense, and in the context of the parties’ closing arguments at Jones-Nelson’s trial, there is little chance that the jurors would have been misled on this issue”). 28 Ward v. State, Dep’t of Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. State, Department of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2022Safety, 288 P.3d 94, 98 (Alaska 2012). 29 Nelson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 267 P.3d 636, 642 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Mech. | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen1 sentence2022Safety, 288 P.3d 94, 98 (Alaska 2012). 29 Nelson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 267 P.3d 636, 642 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Mech. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2022The court of appeals held that the error of including Instruction 34 was harmless, reasoning that “when the supplemental instruction is read in conjunction with the other jury instructions . . . and in the context of the parties’ closing arguments . . . 66 Brown, 256 U.S. at 343 . 67 State v. Walker, 887 P.2d 971, 976 (Alaska App. 1994). -19 7599 there is little chance that the jurors would have been misled on this issue.”68 We disagree. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2022The indictment charged that he had recklessly placed another person in 18 Phornasavanh v. State, 481 P.3d 1145, 1154 (Alaska App. 2021) (“[A]s a general matter, as long as the jury is properly instructed on the law, a trial court ‘has broad discretion to determine whether to give instructions specially tailored to the case at hand.’” (quoting Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395, 405 (Alaska 2016))). 19 See Rollins, 757 P.2d at 602-03 (holding that the trial court erred in giving a supplemental instruction on a lesser included offense after closing arguments because the defendant was entitled, under C | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence1991In Adams v. State, we considered a supplemental instruction that defined passing control to include “only such a period of time as is reasonably necessary for the possessor to learn of the nature of the substance and to make a legal disposition of it_” 706 P.2d at 1185 (emphasis deleted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Abbottgreen1 sentence1985Abbott, 498 P.2d at 727 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Des Jardins v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See Des Jardins v. State, 551 P.2d 181, 189 (Alaska 1976); Koehler v. State, 519 P.2d 442, 449 (Alaska 1974). (e) Pena challenges admission of a group of more than 60 photographs taken at the accident scene and used in evidence at trial. | 1 | 1 |
Koehler v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See Des Jardins v. State, 551 P.2d 181, 189 (Alaska 1976); Koehler v. State, 519 P.2d 442, 449 (Alaska 1974). (e) Pena challenges admission of a group of more than 60 photographs taken at the accident scene and used in evidence at trial. | 1 | 1 |
Di Costanzo v. Willardgreen1 sentence1966In some instances the attorney’s right to review was assumed; in others that right was challenged and sustained. * * * 16 See also Di Costanzo v. Willard, 165 F.Supp. 533, 537-538 (E.D.N.Y.1958); Postal Mut. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences2022The court of appeals held that the error of including Instruction 34 was harmless, reasoning that “when the supplemental instruction is read in conjunction with the other jury instructions . . . and in the context of the parties’ closing arguments . . . 66 Brown, 256 U.S. at 343 . 67 State v. Walker, 887 P.2d 971, 976 (Alaska App. 1994). -19 7599 there is little chance that the jurors would have been misled on this issue.”68 We disagree. 2019But in a follow-up question, the jury explained that they were seeking clarification of two of the exceptions to the valid use of self-defense — namely, the provisions that preclude a claim of self-defense in instances of “mutual combat,” or when deadly force is used “in revenge for, retaliation for, or response to actual or perceived conduct by a rival or perceived rival.”11 These exceptions are statutory, and they were set out in one of the pattern instructions that the court gave to the jury — not in the supplemental instruction.12 Viewing the jury instructions and the attorneys’ arguments | 2 | 2019–2022 |
Bowers v. State
green
2 sentences2022The indictment charged that he had recklessly placed another person in 18 Phornasavanh v. State, 481 P.3d 1145, 1154 (Alaska App. 2021) (“[A]s a general matter, as long as the jury is properly instructed on the law, a trial court ‘has broad discretion to determine whether to give instructions specially tailored to the case at hand.’” (quoting Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395, 405 (Alaska 2016))). 19 See Rollins, 757 P.2d at 602-03 (holding that the trial court erred in giving a supplemental instruction on a lesser included offense after closing arguments because the defendant was entitled, under C 2022In response, the trial court issued a supplemental instruction informing the jury that it could find the defendant guilty based on his use of either weapon, so long as the jurors unanimously agreed on the conduct (i.e., the particular weapon) forming the basis of the conviction.24 The supreme court rejected the defendant’s claim that the supplemental instruction constructively amended the indictment.25 Noting that the grand jury heard evidence about the defendant’s use of both weapons, the court concluded that the defendant was on notice that his use of either gun could form the basis for the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day
green
1 sentence1980The instruction might be compared to the one given in Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1979), which read in part: If you find that Defendant acted with reckless indifference toward the safety of its customers, or that its acts were maliciously or wantonly done, then in addition to any actual damages you may also award a reasonable sum as punitive damages. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Noffke v. State
green
1 sentence1968Id. at 106 . 11 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.