Summary
In State v. Serdahely, 635 P.2d 1182 (Alaska 1981), the Alaska Supreme Court was again asked to determine the scope of immunity that would be necessary to compel a reluctant witness to testify.
Summary of this case from State v. GonzalezOpinion
No. 6370.
November 10, 1981.
Timothy Petumenos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Dean J. Guaneli, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel W. Hickey, Chief Prosecutor, and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for petitioner.
Thomas Findley, Findley Brinkman, Juneau, for real party in interest.
Jeffrey M. Feldman and James D. Gilmore, Gilmore Feldman, Anchorage, for Arthur F. Kelly, II, as amicus curiae.
OPINION
1. The Original Application for Relief filed in the Court of Appeals on October 26, 1981, certified to and accepted by this court pursuant to AS 22.05.015(b) and Appellate Rule 408(b), is granted.
2. The Order of the Superior Court of October 15, 1981 entitled Denial of State's Application to Compel Testimony of Michael DeMan and Denial of State's Motion to Stay Hohman's Trial is affirmed.
3. This court adopts pursuant to its supervisory powers as a rule of practice the provisions of Rule 732 of the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure including subsection (b) relating to the nature and scope of immunity for the reasons expressed in the commentary to the rule.
COMPTON, J., not participating.