Olson v. State

13 Citing cases

  1. Stoner v. State

    421 P.3d 108 (Alaska Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that the mistake of law defense "is not available to people who form their own mistaken opinion about the law"

    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.

  2. Stoner v. State

    Court of Appeals No. A-11976 (Alaska Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018)

    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.

  3. Stoner v. State

    Court of Appeals No. A-11976 (Alaska Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2018)

    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.

  4. Joseph v. State

    No. A-13520 (Alaska Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    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."

  5. Rask v. State

    404 P.3d 1236 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times
    Discussing the manner in which a defendant may be notified that refusing to submit to a breath test constitutes a crime

    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.

  6. In re Mark V.

    375 P.3d 51 (Alaska 2016)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming commitment order based on findings that respondent "needed medications and [was unable] to follow an outpatient regimen," could not "understand his situation, symptoms or current illness," and "would be entirely unable to fend for himself independently"

    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.

  7. In re Necessity for the Hospitalization Dakota K.

    354 P.3d 1068 (Alaska 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that if a patient “files an appeal challenging the commitment order on sufficiency of evidence grounds, the State can file a motion to dismiss based on mootness, and the respondent would then have the burden of making some evidentiary showing either that this was the first involuntary commitment or that there is some other factual basis for claiming collateral consequences”

    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

  8. Fields v. Fields

    Supreme Court No. S-13851 (Alaska Jun. 27, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  9. In re Joan K.

    273 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2012)   Cited 39 times
    Finding no less restrictive alternative where surveillance by family would not provide sufficient support and patient's behavior lacked stability in part because she denied she was mentally ill

    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.

  10. Beltz v. State

    551 P.3d 583 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times
    Holding "the lack of affirmative warnings in a given case is not necessarily dispositive, as the requisite awareness may be proven through other evidence, including but not limited to, a defendant’s pre- and post-arrest conduct and statements"

    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.