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 1972–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Watson v. Stategreen2 sentences1983To constitute proof of such an admission, the evidence must disclose that: 1) the statement was extrajudicial, 2) it was incriminatory or accusative in import, 3) it was one to which an innocent man would in the situation and surrounding circumstances naturally respond, 4) it was uttered in the presence and hearing of the accused, 5) he was capable of understanding the incriminatory meaning of the statement, 6) he had sufficient knowledge of the facts embraced in the statement to reply to it and 7) he was at liberty to deny it or reply to it. 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 638, at 692 (1967); see als 1977To constitute proof of such an admission, the evidence must disclose that: 1) the statement was extrajudicial, 2) it was incriminatory or accusative in import, 3) it was one to which an innocent man would in the situation and surrounding circumstances naturally respond, 4) it was uttered in the presence and hearing of the accused, 5) he was capable of understanding the incriminatory meaning of the statement, 6) he had sufficient knowledge of the facts embraced in the statement to reply to it and 7) he was at liberty to deny it or reply to it. 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 638, at 692 (1967); see als | 2 | 2 |
Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Institutegreen2 sentences2019But the master made no findings about whether the waiver was based on “informed consent.” Connor contends this was error: that the superior court should have inquired 3 In re Hospitalization of Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 763-64 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 375 (Alaska 2007)). 4 Id. at 764. 5 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 379 . 6 AS 47.30.735(b)(1). 7 Id. -7- 7329 into, and made findings about, the basis for Connor’s apparent waiver. 2019But the master made no findings about whether the waiver was based on “informed consent.” Connor contends this was error: that the superior court should have inquired 3 In re Hospitalization of Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 763-64 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 375 (Alaska 2007)). 4 Id. at 764. 5 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 379 . 6 AS 47.30.735(b)(1). 7 Id. -7- 7329 into, and made findings about, the basis for Connor’s apparent waiver. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jacob S.green1 sentence2019But the master made no findings about whether the waiver was based on “informed consent.” Connor contends this was error: that the superior court should have inquired 3 In re Hospitalization of Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 763-64 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 375 (Alaska 2007)). 4 Id. at 764. 5 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 379 . 6 AS 47.30.735(b)(1). 7 Id. -7- 7329 into, and made findings about, the basis for Connor’s apparent waiver. | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Pringlegreen2 sentences2012See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370 , 124 S.Ct. 795 , 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) ("A war-rantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony ... is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause."); AS 12.25.030(a)(3); see also McCoy v. State, 491 P.2d 127, 130 (Alaska 1971) (interpreting AS 12.25.030(a)(3) and holding "a peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person for a felony when the officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and probable cause to believe that the person committed it"). . 2012See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370 , 124 S.Ct. 795 , 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) ("A war-rantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony ... is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause."); AS 12.25.030(a)(3); see also McCoy v. State, 491 P.2d 127, 130 (Alaska 1971) (interpreting AS 12.25.030(a)(3) and holding "a peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person for a felony when the officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and probable cause to believe that the person committed it"). . | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370 , 124 S.Ct. 795 , 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) ("A war-rantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony ... is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause."); AS 12.25.030(a)(3); see also McCoy v. State, 491 P.2d 127, 130 (Alaska 1971) (interpreting AS 12.25.030(a)(3) and holding "a peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person for a felony when the officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and probable cause to believe that the person committed it"). . | 1 | 1 |
Atwater v. City of Lago Vistagreen2 sentences2012See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 , 341 n. 11, 121 S.Ct. 1536 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) ("We need not, and thus do not, speculate whether the Fourth Amendment entails an 'in the presence' requirement for purposes of misdemeanor arrests."). . 2012See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 , 341 n. 11, 121 S.Ct. 1536 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) ("We need not, and thus do not, speculate whether the Fourth Amendment entails an 'in the presence' requirement for purposes of misdemeanor arrests."). . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence1986See Smith v. State, 711 P.2d 561 (Alaska App. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence1986The court relied on Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 38 (based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43) which requires presence of the defendant at various stages of the trial. 509 P.2d at 1092-93 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Robinson v. State
green
1 sentence1972Robinson v. State, 4 Md.App. 515 , 243 A.2d S79 (1968) ; Prosser v. Parsons, 245 S.C. 493 , 141 S.E.2d 342 (1965). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Prosser v. Parsons
green
2 sentences1972Robinson v. State, 4 Md.App. 515 , 243 A.2d S79 (1968) ; Prosser v. Parsons, 245 S.C. 493 , 141 S.E.2d 342 (1965). 1972Robinson v. State, 4 Md.App. 515 , 243 A.2d S79 (1968) ; Prosser v. Parsons, 245 S.C. 493 , 141 S.E.2d 342 (1965). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.