 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Becker v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8218,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police told defendant they would take care of his car, it was not obvious that defendant still wanted to make a phone call when he arrived at the police station, therefore, suppression of defendant's breath test was not warranted.
|
|||||
| Watt v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8417, No. 1848,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 3, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court judge's assignment of defendant's case to himself for trial in the superior court while case was still in district court could not extinguish defendant's right to a peremptory challenge upon the entry of a plea in superior court.
|
|||||
| Grosvold v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7971, No. 4650,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 8, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant and his collaborators were in restroom at the same time with robbery victim while he was injured, and defendant had victim's wallet when they left, evidence was sufficient to show defendant was guilty of second-degree robbery.
|
|||||
| Hunter v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8326, No. 4648,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 8, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court did not make findings on special conditions of defendant's probation and did not justify how the conditions of probation advanced defendant's rehabilitation or protected the public, the case was remanded for such findings.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-8314, A-8315, No. 4647,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 8, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant showed repeatedly that he was willing to carry a handgun and shot one victim three times at close range, defendant's history of use of weapons and violence established a good cause to exceed the sentencing benchmark.
|
|||||
| Rowe v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8281, No. 4649,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 8, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for controlled substance misconduct was proper, where he was not authorized to pursue an argument regarding the Dollison test on appeal when he expressly conceded the opposite in the trial court.
|
|||||
| State v. Strane, Supreme Court No. S-10033,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 10, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of violating a protective order where he knew of the existence and content of the order, the victim was found in his presence, and he recklessly disregarded a risk that his conduct was prohibited by the order.
|
|||||
| Smart v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8336, No. 4653,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence supported the sentence imposed because the trial judge found that defendant knowingly assaulted a trooper, the assault was serious, he had been involved with drugs and crime for a long time, and he put himself and others in danger.
|
|||||
| A.J. v. Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-10156, No. 5656,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 17, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parent's chronic substance abuse placed the children at substantial risk of harm and caused the parent to neglect the girls. The lower court did not err in terminating parental rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
