 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cook v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7960, No. 4748,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant made inappropriate sexual comments toward a teenager and gave her unsolicited backrubs was inadmissible in a sexual assault case involving a child because the prior acts did not constitute a crime.
|
|||||
| East v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8036, No. 4750,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant testified that he was not a violent person, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to cross-examine his assertion that he was not a violent person by asking him about his prior record of assaults.
|
|||||
| Ladick v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7981, No. 4749,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err when it admitted the Alaska State trooper's testimony on the comparison of the tire tracks, where case law allowed lay witnesses, including police officers, to testify whether tires appeared to match tire tracks.
|
|||||
| Nichols v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8136, No. 4752,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the State's closing argument in defendant's murder trial improperly vouched for the strength of its case, the argument did not rise to the level of plain error or inappropriately sway the jury to convict defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Glaser, Court of Appeals No. A-8404, No. 4753,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing judge was not clearly mistaken in finding that, in light of defendant's rehabilitation prospects, minimum sentence increase for second-degree murder did not require higher sentence than that imposed for defendant's motor vehicle homicides.
|
|||||
| Wilkins v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8078, No. 4751,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed defendant acted intentionally despite his intoxication, the State was not required to instruct the grand jury on diminished capacity, and the trial court did not err by restricting testimony about the victims' relationship.
|
|||||
| Black v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8613, No. 1896,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 29, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Peremptory challenge to assignment of trial judge was not filed within Alaska's five-day deadline when the challenge was mailed, but not received, within the five-day period after assignment.
|
|||||
| Noy v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8327, No. 1897,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 29, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska statute defining misdemeanor marijuana possession was interpreted, to preserve its constitutionality, as applying only to quantities found in the home, for personal use, greater than four ounces.
|
|||||
| Skaflestad v. Huna Totem Corp., Supreme Court No. S-10353, No. 5732,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 29, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge did not wrongly impose a scienter requirement in deciding issue of materiality of misrepresentations in creation of settlement trust and information omitted from corporation's communications were not material; thus, shareholders' claims failed.
|
|||||
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. |
