Frankson v. State, 282 P.3d 1271

Frankson was convicted of two counts of third-degree assault and one count of failing to render aid after an ATV incident.
Witnesses testified Frankson drove toward Nash and Lane, struck Nash, and did not stop to help; Lane avoided harm.
Frankson claimed the women were attacking her and she was trying to flee; she described the collision as an accident.
Prior to trial, the State sought to bar necessity or self-defense; defense initially stated no necessity claim would be pursued.
The court instructed on necessity over counsel’s later objection; defense ultimately rested without presenting evidence.
On appeal, Frankson argued for necessity instructions; the State contended the claim was waived and preserved error rules applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does invited error bar review of necessity instruction?	State: invited error prevents plain-error review; defense waived claim.	Frankson: should review regardless of invitation because error affects fairness.	Invited error; no exceptional miscarriage justifies reversal
Was failure to give necessity instruction reversible error given some evidence?	State: no necessity proof; not error to omit instruction.	Frankson: some evidence supports necessity defense.	Not reversible given invited-error posture and defense strategy

Greenwood v. State, 237 P.3d 1018 (Alaska 2010) (necessity defense requires some evidence)
State v. Garrison, 171 P.3d 91 (Alaska 2007) (some evidence entitlement to jury instruction on necessity)
Power Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor & Hintze, 960 P.2d 20 (Alaska 1998) (waiver when endorsing modifications to instructions)
Aviation Assocs., Ltd. v. TEMSCO Helicopters, Inc., 881 P.2d 1127 (Alaska 1994) (cannot complain of jury instruction errors after advocating disputed language)
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Campbell, 691 P.2d 1042 (Alaska 1984) (rejecting appeal where party approved inconsistent instructions)