Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The father of three Indian children killed their mother. After the father’s arrest, the father’s relatives moved the children from Alaska to Texas and gained custody of the children through a Texas district court order. The mother’s sister filed a separate action against the father in Alaska superior court, seeking custody of the children and challenging the Texas order. Although Alaska had exclusive jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination, the Alaska court concluded that Texas was the more appropriate forum and ceded its jurisdiction to the Texas court, primarily because evidence about the children’s current status was in Texas. The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s decision: it was an abuse of discretion to minimize the importance of protecting the children from the father’s alleged domestic violence and to minimize evidence required to resolve domestic violence and Indian Child Welfare Act issues in this case. View "Rice v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Alex H., a prisoner, challenged the superior court’s denial of his request for transport to attend in person his parental rights termination trial, and, therefore, the ultimate termination of his parental rights. He argued that when denying his transport request the superior court: (1) abused its discretion by concluding in its statutory analysis that transport was not required; (2) abused its discretion or erred by failing to consider all required factors for the statutory analysis; and (3) separately violated his due process rights by denying him in-person attendance at the parental rights termination trial. Because the superior court considered all relevant factors the parties presented to it, because it was not obvious that considering additional factors would have changed the court’s statutory analysis, and because the prisoner’s due process rights were not violated, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s transport decision and ultimate termination of the prisoner’s parental rights. View "Alex H. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

The respondent in involuntary commitment and medication proceedings, Jacob S., appealed a few issues related to findings that he was mentally ill and posed a risk of harm to others. The superior court ordered both 30-and 90-day commitments, the latter following a jury trial. The court also entered medication orders after finding the respondent unable to make mental health treatment decisions. The primary argument respondent made on appeal of the commitment order, was: (1) when a respondent requests a jury trial on a 90-day commitment petition, who decides the factual underpinning for and the ultimate question of least restrictive alternative to commitment (the jury or the court); and (2) can a respondent be found incompetent under AS 47.0.837(d)(1) if only part of the requirements of that statute is not met? The Alaska Supreme Court concluded that: (1) the court decides the question of least restrictive alternative; and (2) yes, a respondent can be found incompetent if one part is not met. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court’s commitment and medication orders. View "In Re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jacob S." on Justia Law

In a prison discipline proceeding, prisoner William Johnson was found guilty of possessing contraband. He appealed his punishment to a discipline committee, which affirmed the decision. Represented by counsel, Johnson appealed to the superior court, alleging that the Department of Corrections had deprived him of due process. The court granted the State’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the prisoner’s statement of points on appeal was deficient. When Johnson moved for reconsideration but made no attempt to remedy the deficiency, the superior court denied his motion and awarded the State attorney’s fees. Johnson appealed the dismissal and the award of attorney’s fees. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Anchorage Police Department seized some of appellant Willie Jackson's personal property when he was arrested. He would be charged with several state-law felonies, which were later dropped after he was indicted on federal charges. In December 2012, nearly eight years after the Anchorage police’s initial seizure of his property, Jackson filed a conversion suit against the Municipality of Anchorage, alleging the Municipality unlawfully failed to return his seized property despite a September 2006 order from the U.S. District Court ordering its return. The Municipality moved to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations. The superior court dismissed Jackson’s case under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Jackson appealed. Because Jackson’s complaint alleged facts which, if proved, were sufficient to entitle him to some form of relief, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the order dismissing Jackson’s complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

Defendant Aaron Young was accused of involvement in a shooting and convicted at trial, in part on the strength of three eyewitness identifications. He challenged the admissibility of two of the identifications on due process grounds, but the superior court ruled them admissible. Defendant also requested an eyewitness-specific jury instruction, which the superior court refused. Furthermore, defendant argued that he was entitled to a mistrial because of an alleged discovery violation by the State that he learned of mid-trial. The superior court denied his motion, finding that the State had not violated the disclosure rules and alternatively that the defendant had not suffered any prejudice. The defendant was convicted, and the court of appeals affirmed his conviction. On petition to the Alaska Supreme Court, defendant argued not only that his conviction should have been reversed based on the current law on the admissibility of eyewitness identifications, but also that Alaska’s due process clause required the adoption of a new test. He also argued that the superior court erred in failing to give his requested jury instruction and in failing to grant him a mistrial. The Supreme Court held that the superior court erred under the law as it currently existed when it held one of the eyewitness identifications sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial, but that it did not err in admitting the other. The Court also held that the superior court erred in refusing to give an eyewitness-specific jury instruction but did not err in denying a mistrial. Because the errors were harmless, the Court affirmed defendant’s conviction. In light of the issues raised by this appeal, the Court concluded that the current test for the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence does not adequately protect the right to due process under the Alaska Constitution. The Court therefore identified factors that courts should consider in future cases when deciding whether to admit eyewitness identification evidence. View "Young v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A husband and wife separated after the husband was charged with sexually abusing their minor daughter. The husband eventually pleaded guilty to first degree indecent exposure. In the civil divorce suit, the superior court took judicial notice of the conviction, concluded that the husband’s sexual offense was the cause of his current financial woes and was therefore a form of economic misconduct, and divided the marital property 70-30 in the wife’s favor. The court also concluded that the wife had not wasted or otherwise misused marital funds she had withdrawn between separation and trial and accordingly declined to recapture those funds in the property division. The husband appeals, claiming the superior court should not have considered his criminal offense and by doing so demonstrated bias against him. The husband also contended the superior court abused its discretion by favoring the wife in the property division and that his due process rights were violated. Finding that the superior court erred by treating the wife's attorney's fees as marital expenses, failing to address the husband's request for fees, and by adjusting the property division to account for expenses the husband was separately obligated to pay.The Supreme Court remanded this case for further proceedings, but affirmed in all other respects. View "Jerry B. v. Sally B." on Justia Law

Linden Fyfe was stopped by police while driving on a stretch of highway designated as a "traffic safety corridor." He was charged and convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. At sentencing the trial court imposed double the statutory minimum fine, relying on AS 28.90.030(a), that doubled “the fine, or maximum fine,” for any violation of a provision of Title 28 in a traffic safety corridor. The court of appeals reversed. It concluded that despite the statute’s plain language, the legislature intended fines to be doubled only for noncriminal traffic offenses. The Supreme Court disagreed with that rationale, not the appellate court's mandate. The Court concluded that the statute applied to both criminal and non-criminal traffic offenses under Title 28. But the court also held that the plain language of the statute precluded its application to minimum fines such as the one at issue here. On that ground the Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision to vacate Fyfe’s fine and remanded for imposition of the statutory minimum fine. View "Alaska v. Fyfe" on Justia Law

Maya S. was the three-year-old daughter of Sarah S. and Trevor M. Trevor’s criminal history included a number of assault charges and domestic violence restraining orders involving different victims; he has also struggled with substance abuse.The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took custody of the young girl due to her mother’s neglect and substance abuse. Trevor had been incarcerated at the time, but on his release he made limited efforts to participate in his case plan. OCS filed a petition to terminate his parental rights, asserting that he had abandoned his daughter, and the superior court granted the petition and terminated his rights. Trevor appealed, arguing that he did not abandon his daughter and that if he did, he was not given enough time to remedy the problem. Because the superior court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. View "Trevor M. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

John Botson was arrested for driving under the influence. According to a breath test, his blood alcohol level was .141. The police officer informed Botson of his constitutional right to an independent chemical test, which Botson declined. But unbeknownst to Botson and the police officer administering the test, the breath test device had produced an error code related to one of its quality assurance mechanisms. Botson argues that his breath test result was inadmissible under the Anchorage Municipal Code, which required breath tests to be conducted in compliance with methods approved by the Alaska Department of Public Safety. He also argued that suppression was required under the Due Process Clause of the Alaska Constitution because his ignorance of the error code prevented him from knowingly and intelligently waiving his constitutional right to an independent chemical test. But although the administration of Botson’s breath test may not have strictly complied with approved methods, Botson did not contest the district court’s finding that the error code had no bearing on the accuracy of the test. Accordingly, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court’s and the court of appeals’ conclusions that the breath test result was admissible under Alaska's “substantial compliance” doctrine. The Supreme Court also agreed that Botson validly waived his right to an independent chemical test because he had a basic understanding of that right before declining the test. View "Botson v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law