 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bailey v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8833, No. 5244,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder in violation of Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.110(a)(1) and/or (2) was proper because there was sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to support the indictment. Challenged evidence of a November 1989 incident was relevant to prove defendant's propensity to assault the victim.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8827, No. 5245,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was knowingly and intelligently given under the Sixth Amendment because the trial court went into great detail regarding the disadvantages of not having an attorney and the many tasks an attorney normally undertook; defendant indicated his understanding of all of the court's statements.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. Simonka, Supreme Court No. S-11470, Supreme Court No. S-11841, No. 1282,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding against a condominium resident in her action alleging various forms of harassment and discrimination was proper because she failed to show any evidence of discriminatory intent by the condo association. And, the condominium had no duty to intervene in the resident's disputes with her neighbors.
|
|||||
| Gottardi v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9492, No. 5243,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an arson case, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she admitted defendant's prior statement to a third party that defendant was going to burn the harbor master's office "one of these days." Defendant's prior statement was relevant and admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Alaska R. Evid. 803(3).
|
|||||
| Roussel v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9522, No. 5247,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed in a drug case was not illegal because a trial judge found a Blakely-compliant aggravator; moreover, the trial judge could have imposed the same composite term without relying on aggravating factors. However, an increase in the terms was not permitted under Alaska Const. art. I, § 9 where the sentence had been meaningfully imposed.
|
|||||
| Stevens v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Court of Appeals Nos. A-9674 & A-9683, No. 5246,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision that bar owner operated adult cabaret without conditional use permit was remanded because there was significant question of whether his conduct, single presentation of dancers clothed only in athletic supporters, constituted the operation of an adult cabaret under pre-2005 version of Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska, Ordinance 17.125.010.
|
|||||
| Deptula v. Simpson, Supreme Court No. S-11948, No. 6142,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute over the obligation to disclose to a home's buyers that previous owner had died and decomposed in the home, seller had no duty to disclose because the buyers had waived their right to statutory disclosures, pursuant to Alaska Stat. §§ 34.70.010-.200, and the seller made no misrepresentations.
|
|||||
| McGee v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11611, No. 6143,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the statutory definition of criminal mischief under Alaska Stat. § 11.46.482(a), the State bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant lacked any reasonable ground to believe that his actions were justified by his need for self-protection, and trial court erred by instructing jury that defendant bore the burden.
|
|||||
| State v. Pease, Court of Appeals No. A-8905, No. 2112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jurors were entitled to conduct experiment to determine whether they could recognize each other from 430 feet away to test defense expert's assertion that it was virtually impossible for a human being to distinguish one person from another from 400 feet away; that it took place outside courthouse did not require reversal of defendant's conviction.
|
|||||
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. |
