Dawson v. State
264 P.3d 851
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dawson was charged with fourth-degree assault for striking Meyer and throwing a baking pan.
- Dawson moved to instruct the jury on disorderly conduct AS 11.61.110(a)(5) as a lesser offense.
- Trial court refused the instruction, ruling fighting requires mutual combat and there was no mutual fight.
- Meyer testified he did not suffer physical pain, and prosecution argued assault; Dawson contested whether the conduct fit disorderly conduct.
- On appeal, the court revisits Hedgers v. State and the meaning of “engages in fighting.”
- The court discusses the statutory history of disorderly conduct and the purpose of the 1973 rewrite, including noscitur a sociis and the ratio between assault/harassment and disorderly conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘engages in fighting’ covers one-sided attacks | Dawson argues no mutuality is required (as Hedgers held). | State argues fighting requires mutual combat. | Mutuality required; one-sided attacks do not fit the clause. |
| Whether Hedgers should control the interpretation of ‘fighting’ | Hedgers correctly held that fighting includes one-sided fights. | Hedgers was mistaken and must be overruled. | Hedgers overruled; mutuality is required in this statute. |
| Whether Dawson was entitled to a jury instruction on disorderly conduct | Evidence suggested potential mutual fighting; instruction warranted. | No mutual fight evidence; instruction inappropriate. | Not entitled to lesser-included offense instruction. |
| Whether the prior domestic-violence act evidence affected the verdict | Rule 404(b)(4) evidence could improperly influence the jury. | Evidence properly admitted as character evidence. | Instruction flaw not reversal- prejudicial under record; no appreciable effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marks v. Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644 (Alaska 1972) (struck down vague ordinance, prompting reform of disorderly conduct statute)
- Des Jardins v. State, 551 P.2d 181 (Alaska 1976) (fight as mutual combat; used to discuss meaning of ‘fight’)
- Rivett v. State, 578 P.2d 946 (Alaska 1978) (highlights assault/battery law and distinctions from disorderly conduct)
- City of Stoughton v. Powers, 60 N.W.2d 405 (Wis. 1953) (fighting means voluntary participation in physical combat; mutuality favored)
- Adams v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 531 P.2d 754 (Or. App. 1975) (mutuality principle in fighting interpretations)
- Parker v. Kelly, 529 N.Y.S.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (insufficient evidence where one-sided attack; mutuality required)