obvious error in Alaska

2025Kai objected to the master’s findings and recommendations following the hearing, but only as “to the factual findings and legal conclusions that the State proved he is gravely disabled.” Because he did not object to the master’s finding that API was 26 In re Hospitalization of Jeffrey E., 281 P.3d 84, 88 (Alaska 2012). 27 In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918, 923 (Alaska 2019). 28 Id. at 923-24 . -7- 2085 the least restrictive alternative capable of meeting Kai’s treatment needs, we review his claim for plain error.29 Plain error is an obvious error that is clearly prejudicial.30 Pr

2025Kai objected to the master’s findings and recommendations following the hearing, but only as “to the factual findings and legal conclusions that the State proved he is gravely disabled.” Because he did not object to the master’s finding that API was 26 In re Hospitalization of Jeffrey E., 281 P.3d 84, 88 (Alaska 2012). 27 In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918, 923 (Alaska 2019). 28 Id. at 923-24 . -7- 2085 the least restrictive alternative capable of meeting Kai’s treatment needs, we review his claim for plain error.29 Plain error is an obvious error that is clearly prejudicial.30 Pr

2025Kai objected to the master’s findings and recommendations following the hearing, but only as “to the factual findings and legal conclusions that the State proved he is gravely disabled.” Because he did not object to the master’s finding that API was 26 In re Hospitalization of Jeffrey E., 281 P.3d 84, 88 (Alaska 2012). 27 In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918, 923 (Alaska 2019). 28 Id. at 923-24 . -7- 2085 the least restrictive alternative capable of meeting Kai’s treatment needs, we review his claim for plain error.29 Plain error is an obvious error that is clearly prejudicial.30 Pr

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

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

2015As explained above, determining whether someone is an Indian custodian requires a specific, fact-based inquiry that often requires weighing competing evidence. 31 Lucy J., 244 P.3d at 1118 (quoting Marcia V., 201 P.3d at 502 ). 32 See Kyle S., 309 P.3d at 1267-68 (concluding that an as-applied challenge to a statute’s constitutionality was waived in a termination of parental rights case given the lack of evidence and argument on the matter at trial); Harvey, 172 P.3d at 802 (concluding that the issue of past child support payments was waived given the lack of argument on the matter at trial).

2015As explained above, determining whether someone is an Indian custodian requires a specific, fact-based inquiry that often requires weighing competing evidence. 31 Lucy J., 244 P.3d at 1118 (quoting Marcia V., 201 P.3d at 502 ). 32 See Kyle S., 309 P.3d at 1267-68 (concluding that an as-applied challenge to a statute’s constitutionality was waived in a termination of parental rights case given the lack of evidence and argument on the matter at trial); Harvey, 172 P.3d at 802 (concluding that the issue of past child support payments was waived given the lack of argument on the matter at trial).

1983See Manderson v. State, 655 P.2d 1320 (Alaska App.1983) (probation period is meaningless without imposition of suspended time); AS 12.55.080.

1983Marrone v. State, 653 P.2d 672, 675-76 (Alaska App.1982).

1982See Crutchfield v. State, 627 P.2d 196, 198 (Alaska 1980) (footnotes and citations omitted; emphasis supplied) where the court said: It is well settled that Alaska Criminal Rule 47(b) allows this court to ‘consider •questions raised for the first time on appeal if necessary to effect substantial justice or prevent the denial of fundamental rights.’ But, an alleged error is reviewable as, plain error only if it raises a substantial and important question and is obviously prejudicial.

1982See Crutchfield v. State, 627 P.2d 196, 198 (Alaska 1980) (footnotes and citations omitted; emphasis supplied) where the court said: It is well settled that Alaska Criminal Rule 47(b) allows this court to `consider questions raised for the first time on appeal if necessary to effect substantial justice or prevent the denial of fundamental rights.' But, an alleged error is reviewable as plain error only if it raises a substantial and important question and is obviously prejudicial.