 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coffman v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7426, No. 4541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where cooperating witness agreed to allow wiretapping of conversation with defendant, and police secured a Glass warrant in advance of monitoring the conversation, the tape of the conversation was properly admissible at trial.
|
|||||
| Mark v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7661, No. 4540,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because of woman's death outside hotel room, it was reasonable and prudent for police officers to believe another injured or incapacitated person might be in hotel room, and officer's warrantless entry into defendant's hotel room was justified.
|
|||||
| Rentschler v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7939, No. 4538,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court reasons for its sentencing decision in probation revocation hearing were not reflected in the record on appeal, the appellate court could not conduct a meaningful review, and remand for reconsideration was required.
|
|||||
| Sakeagak v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7807, No. 4539,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court appointed counsel's affidavit that defendant's postconviction relief application was without merit did not comply with criminal rules and did not allow trial court to independently assess merits of defendant's application.
|
|||||
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. |
