In his briefs to this Court, Stoner contends that the "mistake of law" doctrine does not defeat his claim. He argues that, under the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Olson v. State , 260 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2011), he could not be prosecuted for felony escape.Olson involved a motorist who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, and who refused to take a breath test. Under the pertinent statute, when an arrested motorist indicates that they will not take a breath test, the police must advise the motorist that failure to take the test is a separate crime.
In his briefs to this Court, Stoner contends that the "mistake of law" doctrine does not defeat his claim. He argues that, under the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2011), he could not be prosecuted for felony escape. Olson involved a motorist who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, and who refused to take a breath test. Under the pertinent statute, when an arrested motorist indicates that they will not take a breath test, the police must advise the motorist that failure to take the test is a separate crime.
In his briefs to this Court, Stoner does not directly address these decisions or this underlying doctrine of criminal law. Rather, to support his claim that he could not be prosecuted for felony escape, Stoner relies primarily on the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2011). Olson involved a motorist who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, and who refused to take a breath test. Under the pertinent statute, when an arrested motorist indicates that they will not take a breath test, the police must advise the motorist that failure to take the test is a separate crime.
The State concedes that the statement was improper under the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Olson v. State But the State argues that the appropriate remedy is a remand for additional factual findings as to whether the trooper's improper statements influenced Joseph's decision to refuse a breath test. Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056, 1061 (Alaska 2011). When the State concedes error in a criminal case, the appellate court must "independently review the proceedings below to insure that the error confessed is supported by the record on appeal and has legal foundation."
See AS 28.35.032(a).Graham v. State, 633 P.2d 211, 214 (Alaska 1981) ; see also Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056, 1060 (Alaska 2011) (noting that in Alaska, arrestees have the power to refuse, meaning the police may not administer the test if a person continues to refuse after being informed that refusal is a crime but that there is no constitutional, statutory, or implied right to refuse to take a breath test); Copelin v. State, 659 P.2d 1206, 1212 (Alaska 1983) (holding that arrestees have no right to refuse, but do have a power to refuse).Graham, 633 P.2d at 215.
Wetherhorn , 156 P.3d at 375 (citing Holderness v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 24 P.3d 1235, 1237 (Alaska 2001) ).In re Joan K. , 273 P.3d 594, 596 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Olson v. State , 260 P.3d 1056, 1059 (Alaska 2011) ). IV. DISCUSSIONA.
In re Joan K., 273 P.3d 594, 595–96 (Alaska 2012).Id. at 596 (quoting Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056, 1059 (Alaska 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted). IV. DISCUSSION
Labrenz v. Burnett, 218 P.3d 993, 997 (Alaska 2009) (quoting Martens v. Metzgar, 591 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1979)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Id.; see also Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056, 1059 (Alaska 2011). 7. The superior court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence in the record — namely, the e-mail correspondence between Joseph, Wayne Jr., and Elizabeth. And we defer to the court's determination that Joseph and Wayne Jr.'s asserted reasons for failing to act upon receiving notice were not credible.
In re Tracy C., 249 P.3d 1085, 1089 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Clark v. State, Dep't of Corr., 156 P.3d 384, 386 (Alaska 2007)). 5. Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056, 1059 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979)). 6.
Id. at 215.See, e.g., Rask v. State, 404 P.3d 1236, 1240-42 (Alaska App. 2017) (discussing the manner in which a defendant may be notified that refusing to submit to a breath test constitutes a crime); Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056, 1058, 1064 (Alaska 2011) (reversing and remanding for a defendant to show that they were prejudiced by an incorrect warning regarding the consequences of refusing a breath test); Fee v. State, 825 P.2d 464, 467 (Alaska App. 1992) (reversing a defendant's conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical test because the defendant "was not clearly advised that his Miranda rights" did not protect his refusal to submit to chemical testing); Bodey v State, 2009 WL 929434, at *2 (Alaska App Apr. 8, 2009) (unpublished) [8, 9] Although we believe that a similar advisory may be appropriate in the context of arrestees facing potential promoting contraband charges, we do not mandate it in this case.