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 1972–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nathanial L. Kangas v. State of Alaskagreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Kangas v. State, 463 P.3d 189, 192-95 (Alaska App. 2020); Gargan v. State, 805 P.2d 998, 1005 (Alaska App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Gargan v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Kangas v. State, 463 P.3d 189, 192-95 (Alaska App. 2020); Gargan v. State, 805 P.2d 998, 1005 (Alaska App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Terri Lorraine Chilcote v. State of Alaskagreen1 sentence2022Co., 835 P.2d 1181, 1187 (Alaska 1992)); see also Chilcote v. State, 471 P.3d 599, 603 (Alaska App. 2020) (declining review of an issue not raised in the trial court). -32- 7599 and that the instruction was not a pattern instruction.21 But these are not the issues Jones-Nelson raises on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2022It’s not a pattern instruction . . . .” 4 682 P.2d 1119, 1124 (Alaska 1984) (Compton, J., dissenting). 5 887 P.2d 971, 978 (Alaska App. 1994). -28 7599 In response, the prosecutor disagreed and explained the reason for his request, Counsel hasn’t articulated how it’s incorrect. | 1 | 1 |
Weston v. Stategreen1 sentence2022It’s not a pattern instruction . . . .” 4 682 P.2d 1119, 1124 (Alaska 1984) (Compton, J., dissenting). 5 887 P.2d 971, 978 (Alaska App. 1994). -28 7599 In response, the prosecutor disagreed and explained the reason for his request, Counsel hasn’t articulated how it’s incorrect. | 1 | 1 |
Van Huff v. Sohio Alaska Petroleum Co.green1 sentence2022Co., 835 P.2d 1181, 1187 (Alaska 1992)); see also Chilcote v. State, 471 P.3d 599, 603 (Alaska App. 2020) (declining review of an issue not raised in the trial court). -32- 7599 and that the instruction was not a pattern instruction.21 But these are not the issues Jones-Nelson raises on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences1972Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 301 U.S. 292, 307 , 57 S.Ct. 724 , 81 L.Ed. 1093, 1103 (1937). 25 The case at bar fits the classic pattern of a waiver knowingly and intentionally made: (1) The witness at the time of entry of the plea of guilty to the crime of burglary was represented by the public defender. (2) At the time McConkey entered his plea, the district attorney informed the court that McConkey would be called to testify as a witness against his co-defendant, and that the state desired to place him under oath to ascertain the factual background of the burglary. (3) 1972Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 301 U.S. 292, 307 , 57 S.Ct. 724 , 81 L.Ed. 1093, 1103 (1937). 25 The case at bar fits the classic pattern of a waiver knowingly and intentionally made: (1) The witness at the time of entry of the plea of guilty to the crime of burglary was represented by the public defender. (2) At the time McConkey entered his plea, the district attorney informed the court that McConkey would be called to testify as a witness against his co-defendant, and that the state desired to place him under oath to ascertain the factual background of the burglary. (3) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2023The pattern instruction refers to scientific research, although the use note acknowledges that “the committee struggled with the Young court’s direction to characterize the state of scientific knowledge that usually comes to juries in the form of expert testimony.”20 Our interpretation of Young is further supported by the Young court’s reliance on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Henderson.21 As our supreme court noted, its own analysis in Young “closely follows the framework set out by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. Henderson.”22 After Henderson (and four years | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Young v. State
green
2 sentences2023The pattern instruction refers to scientific research, although the use note acknowledges that “the committee struggled with the Young court’s direction to characterize the state of scientific knowledge that usually comes to juries in the form of expert testimony.”20 Our interpretation of Young is further supported by the Young court’s reliance on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Henderson.21 As our supreme court noted, its own analysis in Young “closely follows the framework set out by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. Henderson.”22 After Henderson (and four years 2023The pattern instruction refers to scientific research, although the use note acknowledges that “the committee struggled with the Young court’s direction to characterize the state of scientific knowledge that usually comes to juries in the form of expert testimony.”20 Our interpretation of Young is further supported by the Young court’s reliance on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Henderson.21 As our supreme court noted, its own analysis in Young “closely follows the framework set out by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. Henderson.”22 After Henderson (and four years | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Jordan v. State
green
1 sentence2021For instance, the pattern instruction on the elements of manslaughter now declares that the State must prove that “(1) the defendant caused the death of another person; and (2) the defendant did so recklessly.” See Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 11.41.120(a)(1) (revised 2014).) In his application for post-conviction relief, Geisinger argued that the flaw in these jury instructions was plain error (given this Court’s 1997 decision in Pearson), and that his appellate attorney was incompetent for failing to pursue this claim of plain error. – 32 – 2707 Moreover, Geisinger also argues on | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Angasan v. State
green
2 sentences2019Conclusion The judgement of the superior court is REVERSED. 1 AS 11.41.110(a)(1) or (2). 2 This pattern instruction was later amended in light of our decision in Roberts . 3 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.07 (2011). 4 Angasan v. State , 314 P.3d 1219 , 1222 (Alaska App. 2013). 5 White v. State , 298 P.3d 884 , 885 (Alaska App. 2013), quoting Taylor v. State , 262 P.3d 232 , 234 (Alaska App. 2011). 6 Angasan , 314 P.3d at 1222 . 2019Conclusion The judgement of the superior court is REVERSED. 1 AS 11.41.110(a)(1) or (2). 2 This pattern instruction was later amended in light of our decision in Roberts . 3 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.07 (2011). 4 Angasan v. State , 314 P.3d 1219 , 1222 (Alaska App. 2013). 5 White v. State , 298 P.3d 884 , 885 (Alaska App. 2013), quoting Taylor v. State , 262 P.3d 232 , 234 (Alaska App. 2011). 6 Angasan , 314 P.3d at 1222 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence2019Conclusion The judgement of the superior court is REVERSED. 1 AS 11.41.110(a)(1) or (2). 2 This pattern instruction was later amended in light of our decision in Roberts . 3 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.07 (2011). 4 Angasan v. State , 314 P.3d 1219 , 1222 (Alaska App. 2013). 5 White v. State , 298 P.3d 884 , 885 (Alaska App. 2013), quoting Taylor v. State , 262 P.3d 232 , 234 (Alaska App. 2011). 6 Angasan , 314 P.3d at 1222 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence2019Conclusion The judgement of the superior court is REVERSED. 1 AS 11.41.110(a)(1) or (2). 2 This pattern instruction was later amended in light of our decision in Roberts . 3 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.07 (2011). 4 Angasan v. State , 314 P.3d 1219 , 1222 (Alaska App. 2013). 5 White v. State , 298 P.3d 884 , 885 (Alaska App. 2013), quoting Taylor v. State , 262 P.3d 232 , 234 (Alaska App. 2011). 6 Angasan , 314 P.3d at 1222 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Neitzel v. State
green
2 sentences1993We recommend that trial judges supplement the pattern instruction with a definition of “circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life” based on the discussion in Neitzel, 655 P.2d at 336-37 . 5 . 1993We recommend that trial judges supplement the pattern instruction with a definition of “circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life” based on the discussion in Neitzel, 655 P.2d at 336-37 . 5 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.