 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kozevnikoff v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7674, No. 4623,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an assault case, the trial judge's comments that she was "disgusted" that she had to continue the sentencing and that she would not "rescue" defendant when she denied his motion for an updated presentence report were not grounds for recusal.
|
|||||
| State v. Armstrong, Court of Appeals No. A-8119, No. 4621,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual assault case, the trial judge did not err in adjusting the presumptive term as the 13-year-old victim did not become incapacitated as a result of defendant's act merely because defendant furnished the alcohol to the victim.
|
|||||
| Fardig v. Fardig, Supreme Court No. S-10028, No. 5638,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 4, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's consideration of the mother's drug use under a motion to modify custody was properly used to determine whether a substantial change in circumstances occurred and correctly weighed the best interest of the child criteria.
|
|||||
| McCoy v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-07789,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 4, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for rehearing was denied, where a pre-sentence investigator properly referred to defendant's non-adjudicated acts of delinquency in a pre-sentence report.
|
|||||
| Reich v. Cominco Alaska, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-9717, No. 5637,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 4, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The superior court correctly applied per se rule allowing challenges for cause of prospective jurors with financial interest in the litigation. The special verdict form did not prevent jury from giving effect to continuing violations theory.
|
|||||
| Allen v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-07430,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 11, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the sentencing phase of a second-degree murder trial, the trial judge's rejection of defendant's assertion that he committed the homicide under duress and after being subjected to provocation from the victim was proper.
|
|||||
| Ramsey v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7295, No. 1832,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 11, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant proposed evidence on the linkage between evidence of homosexual rape and the inclination to commit suicide, trial court properly declined to take judicial notice of the evidence and required defendant to present expert testimony.
|
|||||
| Booth v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8219, No. 4625,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court did not adequately explain its reasoning for barring defendant from returning to his town of residence as a condition of defendant's probation, the sentence was remanded for reconsideration of the probation condition.
|
|||||
| Cortez v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-7516, No. 4624,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspicious package factors, explained in light of postal inspector's experience, supported reasonable suspicion that defendant's package contained drugs; thus, dog-sniff was legal, warrant was properly issued, and cocaine was properly discovered.
|
|||||
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. |
