superior court committed plain error in Alaska

2023On appeal, Morrissette argues that the superior court committed plain error when it failed to give the jury a factual unanimity instruction differentiating between the alleged act of unlawfully entering the building’s secured garage and the alleged act of 4 Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008). 5 Morrell v. State, 216 P.3d 574, 576 (Alaska App. 2009). –6– 2740 unlawfully entering an apartment in the building.

2023VI.B.1; see also Cox, 776 P.2d at 1047-48 . -13- 1956 family size, significant income of a child,” or other factors.27 Because Frederickson did not identify other reasons why a variance is necessary to avoid manifest injustice, either in proceedings before the superior court or in his briefing to us, we cannot say the superior court committed plain error by calculating child support according to the formula prescribed by Rule 90.3.28 We therefore affirm the superior court’s use of the primary custody formula to calculate Frederickson’s child support obligation.

2023On appeal, Morrissette argues that the superior court committed plain error when it failed to give the jury a factual unanimity instruction differentiating between the alleged act of unlawfully entering the building’s secured garage and the alleged act of 4 Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008). 5 Morrell v. State, 216 P.3d 574, 576 (Alaska App. 2009). –6– 2740 unlawfully entering an apartment in the building.

2021Both the supreme court and this Court have invoked this principle numerous times since Vest was decided. 8 Even when the members of the supreme court have disagreed as to whether the court should exercise this authority in a particular case, the dissenters have never disputed the existence of this authority. 9 8 See, e.g., Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 , 426–27 (Alaska 2013) (holding that the superior court committed plain error in allowing a parent to deduct his insurance premium from his gross income, even though this ruling was not challenged on appeal); Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 , 450–

2021Both the supreme court and this Court have invoked this principle numerous times since Vest was decided. 8 Even when the members of the supreme court have disagreed as to whether the court should exercise this authority in a particular case, the dissenters have never disputed the existence of this authority. 9 8 See, e.g., Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 , 426–27 (Alaska 2013) (holding that the superior court committed plain error in allowing a parent to deduct his insurance premium from his gross income, even though this ruling was not challenged on appeal); Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 , 450–

2021Both the supreme court and this Court have invoked this principle numerous times since Vest was decided. 8 Even when the members of the supreme court have disagreed as to whether the court should exercise this authority in a particular case, the dissenters have never disputed the existence of this authority. 9 8 See, e.g., Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 , 426–27 (Alaska 2013) (holding that the superior court committed plain error in allowing a parent to deduct his insurance premium from his gross income, even though this ruling was not challenged on appeal); Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 , 450–

2021Both the supreme court and this Court have invoked this principle numerous times since Vest was decided. 8 Even when the members of the supreme court have disagreed as to whether the court should exercise this authority in a particular case, the dissenters have never disputed the existence of this authority. 9 8 See, e.g., Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 , 426–27 (Alaska 2013) (holding that the superior court committed plain error in allowing a parent to deduct his insurance premium from his gross income, even though this ruling was not challenged on appeal); Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 , 450–

2021Both the supreme court and this Court have invoked this principle numerous times since Vest was decided. 8 Even when the members of the supreme court have disagreed as to whether the court should exercise this authority in a particular case, the dissenters have never disputed the existence of this authority. 9 8 See, e.g., Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 , 426–27 (Alaska 2013) (holding that the superior court committed plain error in allowing a parent to deduct his insurance premium from his gross income, even though this ruling was not challenged on appeal); Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 , 450–

2021Both the supreme court and this Court have invoked this principle numerous times since Vest was decided. 8 Even when the members of the supreme court have disagreed as to whether the court should exercise this authority in a particular case, the dissenters have never disputed the existence of this authority. 9 8 See, e.g., Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 , 426–27 (Alaska 2013) (holding that the superior court committed plain error in allowing a parent to deduct his insurance premium from his gross income, even though this ruling was not challenged on appeal); Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 , 450–

2021Both the supreme court and this Court have invoked this principle numerous times since Vest was decided. 8 Even when the members of the supreme court have disagreed as to whether the court should exercise this authority in a particular case, the dissenters have never disputed the existence of this authority. 9 8 See, e.g., Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 , 426–27 (Alaska 2013) (holding that the superior court committed plain error in allowing a parent to deduct his insurance premium from his gross income, even though this ruling was not challenged on appeal); Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 , 450–

2014We therefore do not address this issue. 24 L.D.G., Inc. v. Brown, 211 P.3d 1110, 1118 (Alaska 2009) (citing Pagenkopf v. Chatham Elec., Inc., 165 P.3d 634 , 646 n.50 (Alaska 2007)). 25 Falconer v. Adams, 974 P.2d 406 , 414 n.12 (Alaska 1999) (citing State Farm Fire & Cas.

2009Duffus v. Duffus, 72 P.3d 313, 318-19 (Alaska 2003) (failing to object at the trial court level to master's proposed child support calculations precluded appellate review except for plain error). 62 .

1989See, e.g., Potts v. State, 712 P.2d 385, 390 (Alaska App.1985).