6 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ostrosky v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Steinkruger agreed with the State that Cornwall was trying to raise a mistake-of-law defense, and she barred Cornwall from presenting this testimony: THE COURT: [Ejvidenee [has been offered] that the defendant was acting under a mistake of law — in other words, that she had received legal advice regarding the validity of the State’s actions relating to emergency custody [and] the court’s ... subsequent orders regarding custody, [and] how those affected her[.] [[Image here]] Mistake of law ... is an issue for the court, as clearly set forth in Ostrosky [v. State ], ... 704 P.2d 786 [ (Alaska Ap 1996Clark v. State, 739 P.2d 777 , 779 n. 1 (Alaska App.1987); Ostrosky v. State, 704 P.2d 786, 792 (Alaska App.1985), appeal after remand, 725 P.2d 1087, 1090 (Alaska App.1986) (Os trosky II). | 1 | 2 |
Stoner v. Stategreen1 sentence2020When the agency charged with upholding police standards concludes that a police officer does not have good moral character and 7 Op. at 15. 8 Op. at 16. 9 See, e.g., Stoner v. State, 421 P.3d 108, 111 (Alaska App. 2018) (holding that the mistake of law defense “is not available to people who form their own mistaken opinion about the law”). 10 “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. | 1 | 1 |
Ostrosky v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Steinkruger agreed with the State that Cornwall was trying to raise a mistake-of-law defense, and she barred Cornwall from presenting this testimony: THE COURT: [Ejvidenee [has been offered] that the defendant was acting under a mistake of law — in other words, that she had received legal advice regarding the validity of the State’s actions relating to emergency custody [and] the court’s ... subsequent orders regarding custody, [and] how those affected her[.] [[Image here]] Mistake of law ... is an issue for the court, as clearly set forth in Ostrosky [v. State ], ... 704 P.2d 786 [ (Alaska Ap 1996Clark v. State, 739 P.2d 777 , 779 n. 1 (Alaska App.1987); Ostrosky v. State, 704 P.2d 786, 792 (Alaska App.1985), appeal after remand, 725 P.2d 1087, 1090 (Alaska App.1986) (Os trosky II). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Busby v. State
green
2 sentences2023In Busby, this Court determined that the statute criminalizing driving with a revoked license did not clearly require a particular mental state with regard to whether the defendant was legally authorized to drive a motor vehicle.44 And in Strane, the supreme court determined that the statute criminalizing the violation of a protective order did not clearly allow a defendant to claim ignorance of AS 18.66.130(a)’s mandate that a petitioner’s consent has no effect on a protective order’s no-contact provision.45 We accordingly conclude that whether Hughes may raise a mistake-of-law defense to the 2003The trial judge therefore precluded the defendant from giving the proposed testimony. 30 We agreed with the trial judge's interpretation of the law, and we therefore upheld the trial judge's decision to preclude the defendant from testifying about his reasons for committing the robbery. 31 Another more recent example is Busby v. State, 40 P.3d 807 (Alaska App.2002), where we held that the trial judge could lawfully have prevented the defendant from testifying in support of his sole defense-a mistake-of-law defense-because such defenses are litigated to the court (not the jury), and thus the de | 2 | 2003–2023 |
State v. Strane
green
2 sentences2023In Busby, this Court determined that the statute criminalizing driving with a revoked license did not clearly require a particular mental state with regard to whether the defendant was legally authorized to drive a motor vehicle.44 And in Strane, the supreme court determined that the statute criminalizing the violation of a protective order did not clearly allow a defendant to claim ignorance of AS 18.66.130(a)’s mandate that a petitioner’s consent has no effect on a protective order’s no-contact provision.45 We accordingly conclude that whether Hughes may raise a mistake-of-law defense to the 2023In Busby, this Court determined that the statute criminalizing driving with a revoked license did not clearly require a particular mental state with regard to whether the defendant was legally authorized to drive a motor vehicle.44 And in Strane, the supreme court determined that the statute criminalizing the violation of a protective order did not clearly allow a defendant to claim ignorance of AS 18.66.130(a)’s mandate that a petitioner’s consent has no effect on a protective order’s no-contact provision.45 We accordingly conclude that whether Hughes may raise a mistake-of-law defense to the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Allen v. Municipality of Anchorage
green
1 sentence2019Kinmon’s attorney expressly stated that he had no objection to this instruction, and the parties did not discuss the mistake of law instruction in closing 28 Haggren v. State, 829 P.2d 842 (Alaska App. 1992), overruled on other grounds by Allen v. Anchorage, 168 P.3d 890 (Alaska App. 2007). 29 Id. at 844. 30 Model Penal Code § 2.04(3)(b) (Am. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Haggren v. State
green
2 sentences2019Kinmon’s attorney expressly stated that he had no objection to this instruction, and the parties did not discuss the mistake of law instruction in closing 28 Haggren v. State, 829 P.2d 842 (Alaska App. 1992), overruled on other grounds by Allen v. Anchorage, 168 P.3d 890 (Alaska App. 2007). 29 Id. at 844. 30 Model Penal Code § 2.04(3)(b) (Am. 2019Law Inst., Proposed Official Draft 1962) cited in Haggren, 829 P.2d at 844 . 31 Haggren, 829 P.2d at 844 . – 15 – 2657 arguments. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence1996Clark v. State, 739 P.2d 777 , 779 n. 1 (Alaska App.1987); Ostrosky v. State, 704 P.2d 786, 792 (Alaska App.1985), appeal after remand, 725 P.2d 1087, 1090 (Alaska App.1986) (Os trosky II). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.