Roberts v. State
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 56
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Roberts pleaded no contest to eight counts of flying an aircraft without a license and was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession or transportation of game; the jury acquitted on six other charges.
- The Cape Yakataga hunt involved a third black bear killed unlawfully by Roberts or another hunter, leading to related charges.
- At trial, Roberts challenged: (1) no unanimity instruction; (2) restriction on closing argument contrasting burdens of proof; (3) denial of disclosure of search-warrant-application documents.
- The court concluded the unanimity error was harmless due to jury polling; the burden-of-proof restriction was harmless given argument possibilities; and the sealing/undisclosure ruling was upheld.
- Roberts challenged his composite sentence; the district court imposed 340 days to serve (8 x 20 days for flying without a license, 180 days for the game conviction plus suspension), plus a $5,000 fine and forfeiture of the airplane; appellate review upheld the sentence as not clearly mistaken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity instruction required? | Roberts contends trial court omitted unanimity instruction. | Roberts argues lack of instruction violated unanimity requirement. | Error deemed harmless due to individual juror polling. |
| Restriction on closing argument about burdens of proof? | Roberts argues defense should contrast beyond a reasonable doubt with other burdens. | Court restricted such contrast as improper. | Error harmless; defense addressed concept using other phrasing. |
| Disclosure of warrant-application documents? | Roberts sought disclosure of sealed warrant-related materials. | State argues materials were sealed; district court denied disclosure. | District court’s denial affirmed; sealed materials reviewed on appeal contained no new material. |
| Excessiveness of sentence? | Roberts challenges composite 340-day term. | Court properly weighed extensive criminal history and case facts. | Sentence affirmed as not clearly mistaken. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plantin v. State, 682 N.W.2d 653 (Minn. App. 2004) (unanimity cure by polling jurors after verdicts)
- Kircher v. State, 525 N.W.2d 788 (Wis. App. 1994) (unanimity-polling approach recognized)
- Fountain v. State, 275 A.2d 251 (Del. 1971) (unanimity issues and juror questioning guidance)
- Shane v. Rhines, 672 P.2d 895 (Alaska 1983) (trial-court error and harmlessness analysis)
- Clarke v. State, unpublished WL 2009 (Alaska App. 2009) (trial court may restrict self-defense argument when evidence insufficient)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (concurrence endorsing clearer explanation of reasonable doubt)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard; reasonable possibility standard)
- Ingram v. State, 50 A.3d 1127 (Md. 2012) (curtailment of defense reference found harmless)
- McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974) (harmless-error and consideration in sentencing)