Khan v. State
2012 Alas. LEXIS 81
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Khan was indicted for one count of perjury based on four allegedly false statements in a financial affidavit.
- At trial the superior court instructed that the jury did not need to be unanimous about which statements were false, and Khan did not object.
- Khan was convicted; the court of appeals affirmed, deeming any error harmless due to a blanket defense on mens rea.
- Khan arguing that the unanimous verdict right is constitutional under the Alaska Constitution; question preserved for review.
- This Court held the right to a unanimous jury verdict is protected by due process, and remanded for proper plain error analysis under Adams v. State.
- The Court declined to adopt Hawai‘i Nichols or Olano standards for plain error and remanded to determine if the instruction was erroneous and, if so, whether reversal is required under the correct standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury unanimity is a constitutional right in Alaska. | Khan asserts Alaska requires unanimity in identifying the crime. | Khan argues Adams and due process require unanimity on the act; State contends otherwise or defers to non-unanimous instruction. | Yes; unanimous verdict on the specific criminal conduct is due process protected. |
| What is the proper plain error standard for constitutional errors in erroneous jury instructions when no objection was made. | Khan seeks Hawai'i Nichols-style plain error blending with harmless-error review. | State urges Olano three-prong test with prejudice burden on the State. | Adams v. State standard remains controlling; remand for analysis under Adams. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (establishes constitutional plain-error framework)
- State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai'i 327 (Hawai'i 2006) (plain-error review effectively merged with harmless-error for erroneous jury instructions)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (three-prong plain-error test distinguishing prejudice and actually affecting substantial rights)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (due process limits on defining multiple theories of guilt versus single offense)
- State v. James, 698 P.2d 1161 (Alaska 1985) (unanimity aids certainty in what the defendant did; due process concerns)
- United States v. Gipson, 553 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1977) (federal Gipson view disapproved by Schad; unanimity as a due process concern)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (relates to connection between reasonable-doubt standard and unanimity)