Turner standard in Alaska

2019We applied the Turner analysis in Larson v. Cooper , when we considered and rejected a prisoner's claim that limits on physical contact with visitors violated his religious rights under the federal constitution. 90 P.3d 125 , 129-31 (Alaska 2004). 482 U.S. at 81 -82 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 .

2019We applied the Turner analysis in Larson v. Cooper , when we considered and rejected a prisoner's claim that limits on physical contact with visitors violated his religious rights under the federal constitution. 90 P.3d 125 , 129-31 (Alaska 2004). 482 U.S. at 81 -82 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 .

1998See Matson v. Matson, 639 P.2d 298 , 302 & n. 4 (Alaska 1982) (concern that the categorization between parent and non-parent may be undesirable) (Compton, J., dissenting).

1998See Matson v. Matson, 639 P.2d 298 , 302 & n. 4 (Alaska 1982) (concern that the categorization between parent and non-parent may be undesirable) (Compton, J., dissenting).

2019We applied the Turner analysis in Larson v. Cooper , when we considered and rejected a prisoner's claim that limits on physical contact with visitors violated his religious rights under the federal constitution. 90 P.3d 125 , 129-31 (Alaska 2004). 482 U.S. at 81 -82 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 .

2019We applied the Turner analysis in Larson v. Cooper , when we considered and rejected a prisoner's claim that limits on physical contact with visitors violated his religious rights under the federal constitution. 90 P.3d 125 , 129-31 (Alaska 2004). 482 U.S. at 81 -82 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 .

2024(As we noted previously, the fourth-degree assault count merged with the second-degree robbery conviction.) Why we reject Turner’s challenge to the court’s responses to the jury questions On appeal, Turner argues that the court erred when it rejected his request to instruct the jury that the mental state applicable to the use-of-force element of robbery is “intentionally.” Under Alaska Criminal Rule 30(b), a trial court must generally “instruct the jury on all matters of law which it considers necessary for the jury’s information in giving their verdict.” If the jury asks a legal question whil

2024(As we noted previously, the fourth-degree assault count merged with the second-degree robbery conviction.) Why we reject Turner’s challenge to the court’s responses to the jury questions On appeal, Turner argues that the court erred when it rejected his request to instruct the jury that the mental state applicable to the use-of-force element of robbery is “intentionally.” Under Alaska Criminal Rule 30(b), a trial court must generally “instruct the jury on all matters of law which it considers necessary for the jury’s information in giving their verdict.” If the jury asks a legal question whil

2024(As we noted previously, the fourth-degree assault count merged with the second-degree robbery conviction.) Why we reject Turner’s challenge to the court’s responses to the jury questions On appeal, Turner argues that the court erred when it rejected his request to instruct the jury that the mental state applicable to the use-of-force element of robbery is “intentionally.” Under Alaska Criminal Rule 30(b), a trial court must generally “instruct the jury on all matters of law which it considers necessary for the jury’s information in giving their verdict.” If the jury asks a legal question whil

2024(As we noted previously, the fourth-degree assault count merged with the second-degree robbery conviction.) Why we reject Turner’s challenge to the court’s responses to the jury questions On appeal, Turner argues that the court erred when it rejected his request to instruct the jury that the mental state applicable to the use-of-force element of robbery is “intentionally.” Under Alaska Criminal Rule 30(b), a trial court must generally “instruct the jury on all matters of law which it considers necessary for the jury’s information in giving their verdict.” If the jury asks a legal question whil

2019We address this procedural argument in section IV.C., below. 11 938 P.2d 1029 , 1032 & n.2 (Alaska 1997). 12 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987). -6- 7418 to visitation privileges in Larson v. Cooper.13 The Turner standard “allows prison administration to establish rules [that] are ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’ ”14 The Supreme Court in Turner identified “four factors that are relevant to determining whether a [prison] regulation is reasonable”: (1) whether there is “a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forwa

2019We address this procedural argument in section IV.C., below. 11 938 P.2d 1029 , 1032 & n.2 (Alaska 1997). 12 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987). -6- 7418 to visitation privileges in Larson v. Cooper.13 The Turner standard “allows prison administration to establish rules [that] are ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’ ”14 The Supreme Court in Turner identified “four factors that are relevant to determining whether a [prison] regulation is reasonable”: (1) whether there is “a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forwa

2019We more recently applied the Turner test in Leahy v. Conant, 436 P.3d 1039, 1045-46 (Alaska 2019), addressing restrictions on prisoner mail. 14 482 U.S. at 89 ; Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 . 15 Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 -31 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90 ). 16 938 P.2d at 1032 n.2. 17 90 P.3d at 126 . -7- 7418 “the rules governing contact visitations to prohibit all physical contact between prisoners and visitors other than ‘a short embrace upon initial contact and again upon departure.’ ”18 When Larson broke this rule by holding his wife’s hand during prayer, DOC suspended his contact visitation

2019We more recently applied the Turner test in Leahy v. Conant, 436 P.3d 1039, 1045-46 (Alaska 2019), addressing restrictions on prisoner mail. 14 482 U.S. at 89 ; Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 . 15 Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 -31 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90 ). 16 938 P.2d at 1032 n.2. 17 90 P.3d at 126 . -7- 7418 “the rules governing contact visitations to prohibit all physical contact between prisoners and visitors other than ‘a short embrace upon initial contact and again upon departure.’ ”18 When Larson broke this rule by holding his wife’s hand during prayer, DOC suspended his contact visitation

2019We more recently applied the Turner test in Leahy v. Conant, 436 P.3d 1039, 1045-46 (Alaska 2019), addressing restrictions on prisoner mail. 14 482 U.S. at 89 ; Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 . 15 Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 -31 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90 ). 16 938 P.2d at 1032 n.2. 17 90 P.3d at 126 . -7- 7418 “the rules governing contact visitations to prohibit all physical contact between prisoners and visitors other than ‘a short embrace upon initial contact and again upon departure.’ ”18 When Larson broke this rule by holding his wife’s hand during prayer, DOC suspended his contact visitation

2019We more recently applied the Turner test in Leahy v. Conant, 436 P.3d 1039, 1045-46 (Alaska 2019), addressing restrictions on prisoner mail. 14 482 U.S. at 89 ; Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 . 15 Larson, 90 P.3d at 129 -31 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90 ). 16 938 P.2d at 1032 n.2. 17 90 P.3d at 126 . -7- 7418 “the rules governing contact visitations to prohibit all physical contact between prisoners and visitors other than ‘a short embrace upon initial contact and again upon departure.’ ”18 When Larson broke this rule by holding his wife’s hand during prayer, DOC suspended his contact visitation

2006Ford v. Ford, 68 P.3d 1258, 1263 (Alaska 2003) (quoting Notkin v. Notkin, 921 P.2d 1109, 1112 (Alaska 1996)). 36 .

2006Ford v. Ford, 68 P.3d 1258, 1263 (Alaska 2003) (quoting Notkin v. Notkin, 921 P.2d 1109, 1112 (Alaska 1996)). 36 .

2004Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); see also O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 , 107 S.Ct. 2400 , 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987) (applying Turner test to prisoner free exercise claim). 8 .

2004Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); see also O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 , 107 S.Ct. 2400 , 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987) (applying Turner test to prisoner free exercise claim). 8 .

1998See Evans, 869 P.2d at 480-81 (according substantial deference to trial court’s ability and opportunity to assess witness credibility and demeanor); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 466 P.2d 821, 824 (Alaska 1970). 2.

1998See Evans, 869 P.2d at 480-81 (according substantial deference to trial court’s ability and opportunity to assess witness credibility and demeanor); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 466 P.2d 821, 824 (Alaska 1970). 2.