6 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1979–1996 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKinnon v. Stategreen2 sentences1986This argument is also supported by McKinnon , where the supreme court said, "Vigorous cross-examination regarding the competence of the expert or the reliability of the test can hardly be expected in grand jury proceedings.” McKinnon, 526 P.2d at 28 . 1983Vigorous cross-examination regarding the competence of the expert or the reliability of the test can hardly be expected in grand jury proceedings. 526 P.2d at 27-28 (footnote omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1983See also State v. Johnson, 525 P.2d 532, 536 (Alaska 1974); Taggard v. State, 500 P.2d at 243 n. 17. | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. Stategreen2 sentences1980Keller v. State, 543 P.2d 1211, 1216 (Alaska 1975) (affidavit before magistrate by Alaska officer that set forth the Centra-ba, Washington police chief’s experience with the informant was sufficient to meet the Aguilar standard). 1980Keller v. State, 543 P.2d 1211, 1216 (Alaska 1975) (affidavit before magistrate by Alaska officer that set forth the Centralia, Washington police chief's experience with the informant was sufficient to meet the Aguilar standard). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. State
green
2 sentences1996Gundersen, 792 P.2d at 676 , quoted in Snyder, 879 P.2d at 1028 . 1996Gundersen, 792 P.2d at 676 , quoted in Snyder, 879 P.2d at 1028 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gundersen v. Municipality of Anchorage
green
2 sentences1996DISCUSSION A. The Constitutional Right to an Independent Test 1 Snyder moved to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that the state’s failure to honor his request for an independent blood test violated his right to due process of law-guaranteed him by the Alaska Constitution. 2 In affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion, the court of appeals recognized that in Gundersen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 792 P.2d 673 (Alaska 1990), this court established an accused’s right to an independent test: Since a defendant must provide the state with potentially incriminating evidence at the risk of 1996DISCUSSION A. The Constitutional Right to an Independent Test [1] Snyder moved to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that the state's failure to honor his request for an independent blood test violated his right to due process of law guaranteed him by the Alaska Constitution. [2] In affirming the trial court's denial of the motion, the court of appeals recognized that in Gundersen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 792 P.2d 673 (Alaska 1990), this court established an accused's right to an independent test: Since a defendant must provide the state with potentially incriminating evidence at the risk | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hawley v. State
green
2 sentences1988Hawley, 614 P.2d at 1359 (quoting Snow, 521 F.2d at 734 ). 1988Hawley, 614 P.2d at 1359 (quoting Snow, 521 F.2d at 734 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. Wilmer Stanley Snow
green
2 sentences1988Hawley, 614 P.2d at 1359 (quoting Snow, 521 F.2d at 734 ). 1988Hawley, 614 P.2d at 1359 (quoting Snow, 521 F.2d at 734 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Taggard v. State
green
1 sentence1983See also State v. Johnson, 525 P.2d 532, 536 (Alaska 1974); Taggard v. State, 500 P.2d at 243 n. 17. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Draper v. United States
green
2 sentences1980The detail provided by the informant in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), provides a suitable benchmark. 1980The detail provided by the informant in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), provides a suitable benchmark. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Gieffels
green
2 sentences1979Criminal Rule 6(r) permits the introduction of hearsay evidence if there is “compel *163 ling justification” for its use. 12 In State v. Gieffels, 554 P.2d 460 (Alaska 1976), we elaborated on the meaning of “compelling justification” 13 and noted that McKinnon merely stands for the proposition that where a professional submits a technical report and his testimony would simply affirm that report, it is proper to introduce the evidence by hearsay testimony since the presumed inconvenience is a compelling reason for such evidence. 554 P.2d at 465 n.22. 1979Criminal Rule 6(r) permits the introduction of hearsay evidence if there is “compel *163 ling justification” for its use. 12 In State v. Gieffels, 554 P.2d 460 (Alaska 1976), we elaborated on the meaning of “compelling justification” 13 and noted that McKinnon merely stands for the proposition that where a professional submits a technical report and his testimony would simply affirm that report, it is proper to introduce the evidence by hearsay testimony since the presumed inconvenience is a compelling reason for such evidence. 554 P.2d at 465 n.22. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.