objective and subjective standard in Alaska

2022The instruction in question addressed the use of deadly force in self-defense, a defense that is governed by statute: [A] person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense . . . may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against (1) death; (2) serious physical injury; (3) kidnapping; [or other serious crimes].[22] Under this statute, “a defendant must satisfy both an objective and subjective standard; he must have actually believed deadly force was necessary

2012As our supreme court explained in Weston v. State, when a defendant claims that their use of deadly force was justified under the law of self-defense, "[the] defendant must satisfy both an objective and subjective standard; he must have actually believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself, and his belief must be one that a reasonable person would have held under the circumstances." 682 P.2d 1119, 1121 (Alaska 1984).

2012Or, as this Court paraphrased the requirement in Ha v. State, "[A] defendant's use of force against [an] enemy is authorized only when the defendant actually and reasonably believes that the enemy's threatened attack is imminent." App.1995). 892 P.2d 184, 194 (Alaska In short, Wilkerson's attack on this jury instruction is based on a misreading of the instruction.

1995In Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 834 P.2d 1220, 1224 (Alaska 1992), we expanded the analysis, holding that the UCC covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes both an objective and subjective standard.

1995Only recently in Hillman v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 855 P.2d 1321, 1324 (Alaska 1993), did we deviate from this course by holding that in order to recover for the tort of bad faith in first party insurance cases, the insured must prove objective bad faith on the part of the insurer.

1984A court is obliged to instruct the jury on self-defense only when the record contains "some evidence ... which places in issue the defense... ." AS 11.81.900(b)(15)(A); [2] see also Bangs v. State, 608 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1980); Toomey v. State, 581 P.2d 1124 , 1126 n. 6 (Alaska 1978).

1984A court is obliged to instruct the jury on self-defense only when the record contains “some evidence ... which places in issue the defense_” AS 11.81.-900(b)(15)(A); 2 see also Bangs v. State, 608 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1980); Toomey v. State, 581 P.2d 1124 , 1126 n. 6 (Alaska 1978).