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.
7 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences1982The standard of review of a challenged jury instruction under plain error was set out in Evans v. State, 550 P.2d 830, 843 (Alaska 1976): To constitute “plain error” the defect must be both obvious and substantial. 1982This standard was expanded in Evans v. State, 550 P.2d 830, 843 (Alaska 1976), where the Alaska Supreme Court discussed the plain error rule in the context of a challenged jury instruction. | 2 | 2 |
Nathanial L. Kangas v. State of Alaskagreen2 sentences2025Compton’s challenges to the probation search condition As we have previously stated, the superior court in this case entered convictions for one count of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of second-degree 53 See Kangas v. State, 463 P.3d 189, 194 (Alaska App. 2020) (“[W]hen an appellate court reviews claims of error involving jury instructions, the question is not whether the challenged jury instruction might contain language that could be misinterpreted. 2025Compton’s challenges to the probation search condition As we have previously stated, the superior court in this case entered convictions for one count of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of second-degree 53 See Kangas v. State, 463 P.3d 189, 194 (Alaska App. 2020) (“[W]hen an appellate court reviews claims of error involving jury instructions, the question is not whether the challenged jury instruction might contain language that could be misinterpreted. | 1 | 2 |
City of Hooper Bay v. Bunyangreen1 sentence2024Co., 174 P.3d 757, 765 (Alaska 2007); and then quoting Zamarello v. Reges, 321 P.3d 387, 392 (Alaska 2014)). 40 City of Hooper Bay v. Bunyan, 359 P.3d 972, 978 (Alaska 2015) (providing that when reviewing claims of error involving jury instructions, “our inquiry focuses upon whether the instructions given, when read as a whole, adequately inform the jury of the relevant law”). -19- 7685 can be placed in context. | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Specifically, he challenges the last sentence of the court’s response, which stated: “On the other hand, if you unanimously agree that [the] defendant did not commit attempted murder in the first degree as to all of the alleged victims, you must return a verdict of not guilty on Count II.”3 He argues that this language wrongly implied that the jury could only acquit him on this count if it affirmatively found that he was innocent. “[W]hen an appellate court reviews claims of error involving jury instructions, the question is not whether the challenged jury instruction might contain language th | 1 | 1 |
Mullen v. Christiansengreen1 sentence2024The primary jury instructions The pathway to giving the challenged jury instruction, referred to below as Instruction B-10, was convoluted, and we describe it in some detail so the later post- trial motion (as it related to the disputed jury instruction) and the superior court’s ruling 37 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 364 P.3d 439, 449 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Mullen v. Christiansen, 642 P.2d 1345, 1348 (Alaska 1982)). 38 Cooper v. Thompson, 353 P.3d 782, 786 (Alaska 2015). 39 Id. (first quoting Parnell v. Peak Oilfield Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc.green1 sentence2024The primary jury instructions The pathway to giving the challenged jury instruction, referred to below as Instruction B-10, was convoluted, and we describe it in some detail so the later post- trial motion (as it related to the disputed jury instruction) and the superior court’s ruling 37 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 364 P.3d 439, 449 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Mullen v. Christiansen, 642 P.2d 1345, 1348 (Alaska 1982)). 38 Cooper v. Thompson, 353 P.3d 782, 786 (Alaska 2015). 39 Id. (first quoting Parnell v. Peak Oilfield Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Lynden Inc. v. Walkergreen1 sentence2024Specifically, he challenges the last sentence of the court’s response, which stated: “On the other hand, if you unanimously agree that [the] defendant did not commit attempted murder in the first degree as to all of the alleged victims, you must return a verdict of not guilty on Count II.”3 He argues that this language wrongly implied that the jury could only acquit him on this count if it affirmatively found that he was innocent. “[W]hen an appellate court reviews claims of error involving jury instructions, the question is not whether the challenged jury instruction might contain language th | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Specifically, he challenges the last sentence of the court’s response, which stated: “On the other hand, if you unanimously agree that [the] defendant did not commit attempted murder in the first degree as to all of the alleged victims, you must return a verdict of not guilty on Count II.”3 He argues that this language wrongly implied that the jury could only acquit him on this count if it affirmatively found that he was innocent. “[W]hen an appellate court reviews claims of error involving jury instructions, the question is not whether the challenged jury instruction might contain language th | 1 | 1 |
Zamarello v. Regesgreen1 sentence2024Co., 174 P.3d 757, 765 (Alaska 2007); and then quoting Zamarello v. Reges, 321 P.3d 387, 392 (Alaska 2014)). 40 City of Hooper Bay v. Bunyan, 359 P.3d 972, 978 (Alaska 2015) (providing that when reviewing claims of error involving jury instructions, “our inquiry focuses upon whether the instructions given, when read as a whole, adequately inform the jury of the relevant law”). -19- 7685 can be placed in context. | 1 | 1 |
Parnell v. Peak Oilfield Service Co.green1 sentence2024Co., 174 P.3d 757, 765 (Alaska 2007); and then quoting Zamarello v. Reges, 321 P.3d 387, 392 (Alaska 2014)). 40 City of Hooper Bay v. Bunyan, 359 P.3d 972, 978 (Alaska 2015) (providing that when reviewing claims of error involving jury instructions, “our inquiry focuses upon whether the instructions given, when read as a whole, adequately inform the jury of the relevant law”). -19- 7685 can be placed in context. | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2024The primary jury instructions The pathway to giving the challenged jury instruction, referred to below as Instruction B-10, was convoluted, and we describe it in some detail so the later post- trial motion (as it related to the disputed jury instruction) and the superior court’s ruling 37 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 364 P.3d 439, 449 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Mullen v. Christiansen, 642 P.2d 1345, 1348 (Alaska 1982)). 38 Cooper v. Thompson, 353 P.3d 782, 786 (Alaska 2015). 39 Id. (first quoting Parnell v. Peak Oilfield Serv. 2024The primary jury instructions The pathway to giving the challenged jury instruction, referred to below as Instruction B-10, was convoluted, and we describe it in some detail so the later post- trial motion (as it related to the disputed jury instruction) and the superior court’s ruling 37 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 364 P.3d 439, 449 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Mullen v. Christiansen, 642 P.2d 1345, 1348 (Alaska 1982)). 38 Cooper v. Thompson, 353 P.3d 782, 786 (Alaska 2015). 39 Id. (first quoting Parnell v. Peak Oilfield Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Love v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Given the fact that there were obvious reasons why Wynne might be motivated to testify falsely, and given the strength of the evidence tying Wynne to the robbery, we conclude that the challenged jury instruction did not appreciably affect the jury’s verdict, and that the error was therefore harmless. 21 Conclusion The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED. 21 See Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 631-32, 634 (Alaska 1969). – 13 – 2615 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Konrad v. State
green
2 sentences2018Conclusion The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED. 1 Id. , 763 P.2d at 1380 -81 . 2 Here is the challenged jury instruction that the judge gave in Saunders's case: A defendant may not be convicted of assault in the third degree as charged in this case unless he made "repeated threats." In order to determine whether the defendant made repeated threats the jury must consider the following factors: (1) Whether there was a clear break in context between initial and subsequent threats; and (2) Whether there was a passage of sufficient time between threats to permit reflection. 2018Conclusion The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED. 1 Id. , 763 P.2d at 1380 -81 . 2 Here is the challenged jury instruction that the judge gave in Saunders's case: A defendant may not be convicted of assault in the third degree as charged in this case unless he made "repeated threats." In order to determine whether the defendant made repeated threats the jury must consider the following factors: (1) Whether there was a clear break in context between initial and subsequent threats; and (2) Whether there was a passage of sufficient time between threats to permit reflection. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.