Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Sven Rofkar grew a substantial quantity of marijuana in a house he rented. After state troopers searched the house, Petitioner was charged with four felonies, all brought under separate subsections of AS 11.71.040, designated as "misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree." A jury found Rofkar guilty on all charges. The superior court merged two possession charges into the manufacturing charge, but refused to merge the "maintaining" charge. Petitioner therefore stood convicted of two felonies. The double jeopardy clause of the Alaska Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense." The underlying question in this case was whether two convictions have been imposed on Petitioner for the "same offense" within the meaning of this clause or whether he committed two crimes. Petitioner raised this issue on appeal to the court of appeals. But the court of appeals declined to consider it. Instead, the court held that its opinion in "Davis v. State" was controlling authority. Petitioner did not argue that "Davis" should be overruled in his opening brief, although he did so in his reply brief, the court gave the double jeopardy issue no further consideration. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that this case should be reviewed by the court of appeals on the merits for two reasons: first, the double jeopardy issue was raised and not waived; second, it was not clear that "Davis v. State" was decided in accordance with the applicable test for deciding double jeopardy claims set out in the Court's opinion in "Whitton v. State." View "Rofkar v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Petitioner Daniel Nelson applied for post-conviction relief, alleging 35 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. At a deposition, trial counsel asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding his representation of Petitioner. The superior court ultimately dismissed all but one post-conviction relief claim for failure to establish a prima facie case, and the court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner petitioned for the Supreme Court's review to determine whether the ordinary presumption of defense counsel's competence applied when counsel invokes the Fifth Amendment regarding the representation. The Court determined that it does, but noted that an adverse inference may be drawn in the petitioner's favor on specific disputed factual issues if warranted in an appropriate case. With this clarification, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision because this was not an appropriate case warranting such an inference. View "Nelson v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Two correctional officers allegedly injured inmate Respondent Paul Heisey within the jail. Respondent filed a complaint asserting several tort claims against the State and the two officers. Pursuant to a statute allowing the State to substitute as defendant for any State employee that is certified as acting within the scope of employment, the Attorney General certified the officers as acting within the scope of their employment and substituted the State as the Defendant. The State then filed a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. While the motion was pending, Respondent moved to amend his complaint to substitute state constitutional claims for the tort claims. The superior court granted the motion to amend, ruling that Respondent may have a damages claim for violation of his state constitutional rights under the circumstances of the case. In the same order, the superior court partially granted and partially denied the motion to dismiss. The State petitioned for review of the superior court's legal conclusions. The Supreme Court accepted the petition and requested briefing on three issues: (1) whether the Attorney General's certification was subject to judicial review; (2) whether the inmate's claims arose out of an assault or battery for which the State is immune; and (3) whether a state constitutional claim for damages exists under the circumstances of this case. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Attorney General's certification was subject to judicial review, that some of the inmate's claims arose out of an assault or battery for which the State is immune, and that a damages claim under the state constitution does not exist under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the Court vacated the superior court's order on the motion to amend and motion to dismiss, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Alaska v. Heisey" on Justia Law

David S. appealed the termination of his parental rights to his daughter Hannah, who is an Indian child. Hannah was taken into the custody by the Office of Children's Services (OCS) while David was incarcerated. David remained in jail for the first 20 months of Hannah's life. David was released from prison and was on parole for five months, during which time he had regular visits with Hannah. David then became a fugitive for nine months, before being recaptured and reincarcerated. While David was a fugitive, OCS petitioned for termination of his parental rights, and two months after David was returned to prison, the superior court held a termination trial. The superior court found that Hannah was a child in need of aid due to David’s abandonment, incarceration, and substance abuse. The superior court also concluded that OCS had engaged in active efforts to help David's rehabilitation, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act, and that it was in Hannah's best interests for David's parental rights to be terminated. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's ruling because OCS established all requirements necessary for termination. View "David S. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Svcs" on Justia Law

The Bethel Superior Court entered an order terminating an incarcerated father's parental rights to three of his five children. The father appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by finding that the State made active efforts to prevent the breakup of his family and finding that it was in the children's best interests for his parental rights to be terminated. Because the superior court's active efforts and best interests findings were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's ruling terminating the father's parental rights. View "Doe v. Alaksa Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court considered the long-standing "emergency aid" exception to the general requirement that a search warrant be obtained prior to police entry into a residence. With this opinion, the Court established that the Alaska Constitution's standards for justifying the doctrine's application goes beyond those required by the federal Constitution, and adopted the standards the State court of appeals first implemented in "Gallmeyer v. State." The Court then considered whether the court of appeals correctly applied the doctrine when it reversed the trial court's ruling that the doctrine excused the warrantless police entry in Defendant Robert Gibson, III's case. Because the police had a reasonable belief of an emergency to justify a warrantless entry into the residence, the Supreme Court concluded the court of appeals did not, and reversed the appellate court's decision. View "Alaska v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Frank Olson was arrested in Anchorage for driving while intoxicated. At the police station he refused to submit to a breath test. An officer advised him of the consequences for refusing to take the test using an implied consent form, but the form contained information that was out of date; it stated that refusal was a felony if the arrestee had been convicted of DWI or refusal twice within the previous five years. In fact, refusal was a felony if the arrestee had been twice convicted within the previous ten years. Petitioner had several prior DWI convictions, one of which was approximately three weeks outside the five-year window, but well within the ten-year window. Petitioner persisted in his refusal and was convicted of the class C felony, refusal to submit to chemical test. He appealed, claiming the erroneous warning violated his due process rights. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed, but the Supreme Court granted his petition for hearing. Because the Court held that Petitioner bore the burden of proving prejudice from the erroneous information, the Court remanded his case to give him an opportunity to make that showing. View "Olson v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Leroy Adams of sexual assault in the second degree for having sexual intercourse with K.S. when he knew that K.S. was unaware that a sexual act was being committed. Both Defendant and K.S. were intoxicated at the time, and Defendant testified at trial that the sex was consensual. During his cross-examination of Defendant, the prosecutor questioned him about his refusal to speak to the police prior to trial. The prosecutor also argued to the jury in closing that Defendant's refusal to talk to the police made his testimony at trial less credible. Defendant claimed on appeal that the prosecutor’s questions and argument were improper comments on Defendant's right to silence under article I, section 9 of the Alaska Constitution. Because Defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s questions or argument at trial, the court of appeals affirmed his conviction. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's petition for review and concluded that the prosecutor improperly commented on Defendant's invocation of his right to silence and violated his constitutional rights. The Court reversed his conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Adams v. Alaska" on Justia Law

After a disciplinary hearing, a hearing officer found Alaska prison inmate Joseph James guilty of the “low-moderate” infraction of “threatening another person with future bodily harm” at Red Rocks Correctional Center in Arizona. The determination was based entirely on an incident report written by a prison staff member who had not witnessed the incident. Instead, the report’s author provided a hearsay account of a conversation between James and another staff member. After exhausting his administrative remedies, James filed an appeal to the superior court. James argued that basing the finding of guilt solely on the hearsay written account constituted a violation of his due process rights. James also maintained that the failure to audio-record the disciplinary hearing violated due process. The superior court affirmed the disciplinary determination. Because the Supreme Court concluded that James’s due process right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses was violated during the disciplinary proceedings and that he was prejudiced by the failure to audio-record the disciplinary hearing, the Court vacated the disciplinary determination and remanded the case for a new hearing. View "James v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Byron Kalmakoff of raping and murdering his cousin when he was fifteen years old. Troopers sent to investigate the murder conducted four interviews with Defendant. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress statements he made in those interviews based on "Miranda" violations. The trial court suppressed a portion of the first interview and all of the second, but admitted the third and fourth interviews. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, concluding that any error in admitting portions of the first interview was harmless and that the third and fourth interviews were "sufficiently insulated" from any Miranda violations that occurred during the first two interviews. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for additional fact findings and concluded that the Miranda violations from the first two interviews violated Defendant's right to remain silent. As such, the third and fourth interviews were tainted by violations in the first two interviews. The Court reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Kalmakoff v. Alaska" on Justia Law