 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Campbell v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9539, No. 5168,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driving under the influence case, there was no evidence that defendant was so confused or intimidated that she was afraid to ask about an independent test under Alaska Stat. § 28.35.033(e); an officer did not interfere with the due process right to take the test by his act of playing a song or making comments about defendant's truthfulness.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8635, No. 5169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for shooting a hole in a pipeline, trial court's admission of some statements defendant made to state troopers did not warrant reversal, although defendant had invoked his constitutional rights after receiving Miranda warnings, because the admission of any of the statements was harmless error, if any.
|
|||||
| Starr v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9084, No. 5166,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In murder trial, trial court did not err in refusing to allow evidence of witness's past mental health problems because defendant needed to show these problems were relevant, pursuant to Alaska R. Evid. 104. Also, trial court did not err in denying continuance or motion for new trial based on evidence that defendant might have suffered concussion.
|
|||||
| Sudbury v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9204, No. 5170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of robbery, theft, and assault. Statements given to troopers were not involuntary because troopers did not overbear defendant's will; however, defendant needed to be resentenced because assault should have been merged with robbery conviction, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 11.41.510(a) and Alaska Stat. § 11.41.220(a)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| Walluk v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9488, No. 5167,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of domestic violence assault and failure to appear. Defendant's claim that he was denied a speedy trial, as was his right under Alaska R. Crim. P. 45, was not resolved because appellate court could not discern from record whether trial court erred in excluding time or whether trial court found cause for excludable periods.
|
|||||
| Labrake v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9189, No. 2083,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Trial court properly denied petitioner's request for post-conviction relief because petitioner failed to show attorney acted incompetently. Attorney's statement that he opposed sexual abuse of children was insufficient to establish prima facie case of incompetence.
|
|||||
| Matthew v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9395, No. 2084,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of DUI, after pleading no contest. Prior to sentencing, defendant was placed on electronic monitoring. Defendant was not entitled to credit for time served under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.025 because defendant failed to establish that he was subjected to restrictions approximating those experienced by one who was incarcerated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
