342 P.3d 1254
Alaska Ct. App.2014Background
- Jackson was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and fourth-degree assault for assaulting his girlfriend L.D. and forcing intercourse.
- On appeal, he challenges the lack of a jury unanimity instruction specifying the act(s) on which the sexual assault conviction rests.
- Facts showed three penetrations: night digital-vaginal, and morning penile-vaginal and penile-anal penetrations; evidence and arguments centered on penile penetrations.
- Indictment charged one count of first-degree sexual assault without electing a specific act; jury received a general verdict without unanimity as to the act(s).
- The defense argued vaginal intercourse was consensual and anal penetration was accidental; the State focused on penile penetrations in closing.
- Court reverses the conviction, holding failure to require unanimity as to the act(s) is plain error and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lack of a unanimous-act instruction was plain error | Jackson | Jackson | Yes; plain error established |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Jackson | State | No; not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. State, 278 P.3d 893 (Alaska 2012) (harmlessness standard for plain-error in unanimity cases; reversal required if no reasonable possibility of different outcome)
- Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (requires harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt review for constitutional errors raised on appeal)
- Anderson v. State, 337 P.3d 534 (Alaska App. 2014) (clarifies harmlessness standard post-Khan for plain-error analysis)
- Covington v. State, 703 P.2d 436 (Alaska App. 1985) (harmlessness analysis under older standard; distinguished by later cases)