State v. Carlin
2011 Alas. LEXIS 18
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Two Alaska cases consolidated to decide the effect of a defendant's death during an appeal.
- Carlin was convicted of first-degree murder; died before the opening brief was filed.
- Dale was convicted of DUI-related offenses; his discretionary petition for hearing was granted; he died after filing his opening brief.
- Hartwell v. State (Hartwell) adopted abatement ab initio, abating convictions upon death pending appeal.
- Alaska later recognized victims' rights and reformulated views on abatement, moving away from Hartwell.
- Court adopts substitution approach, allowing substitution by the defendant's estate to continue the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hartwell should be overruled due to changed conditions | Hartwell no longer sound given victims' rights expansion | Hartwell should remain controlling | Hartwell overruled; abatement ab initio rejected |
| What rule should govern death during appeal | Abatement ab initio should apply to both cases | Substitution or continued appeal preferred | Substitution is the appropriate rule to replace abatement ab initio |
| Whether the defendant's estate may substitute to continue the appeal | Estate substitution unnecessary; proceed to dismissal | Estate substitution protects right to appeal | The defendant's personal representative may substitute; appeal may continue |
| Jurisdiction, mootness, and representation concerns when a party dies | Death dissolves proceedings; appeal should not continue | Jurisdiction and substitution allow continued review | Appellate jurisdiction persists; substitution and continued representation permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartwell v. State, 423 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1967) (adopted abatement ab initio)
- People v. Mazzone, 74 Ill.2d 44 (Illinois 1978) (discretionary review death triggers abatement similar to right appeals)
- Surland v. State, 392 Md. 17, 895 A.2d 1034 (Maryland 2006) (substitution for deceased defendant to continue appeal)
- Korsen v. State, 141 Idaho 445, 111 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2005) (authority to substitute to continue appeal)
- Perry v. State, 575 A.2d 1154 (Del. 1990) (jurisdiction concerns after death and pending appeal)
- People v. Peters, 449 Mich. 515, 537 N.W.2d 160 (Michigan 1995) (presumption of innocence and appeal status after conviction)
- State v. McGettrick, 31 Ohio St.3d 138, 509 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio 1987) (no presumption of innocence pending appeal; conviction persists)
- Gollott v. State, 646 So.2d 1297 (Mississippi 1994) (substitution remedy under Rule 43(a))
- Surland v. State, 895 A.2d 1034 (Maryland 2006) (substitution mechanism to continue appeal)