*1 948 issue, disability second dismiss qualify As to the we the did not for Stigall
that hearing grant improvidently for petition as benefits. issue, the first affirm ed. As to we the superior the court affirm- of The decision appeals by for reasons stated court of the claim for Stigall’s denial of ing the board’s State, appeals in v. the court of Dresnek non-occupational disability bene- permanent (Alaska App.1985) and in P.2d 1059 697 AFFIRMED. fits is State, (Alaska App. 697 1050 v. P.2d Staael 1985).
RABINOWITZ, Justice, with Chief whom BURKE, Justice, joins, concurring. in the I the result and in decision concur improvi- petition, part, in as to dismiss the State, dently granted. See Dresnek v. 718 STAAEL, Petitioner, Paul 1986) (Rabinowitz, (Alaska, n. 2 P.2d 156 v. C.J., Burke, J., dissenting). joined by Alaska, Respondent. of STATE No. S-964.
Supreme Court Alaska. of
2,May 1986. Defender, Greenberg, Public Asst. Carol J.J.J., In the Matter of A Minor. Defender, Fairbanks, Fabe, Dana Public No. S-718. Anchorage, petitioner. for Gen., Bacon, Atty. An- D. Asst. Robert Supreme Court of Alaska. Gen., Brown, Atty. Ju- chorage, Harold M. 9, neau, May respondent. 1986. for Opinion Rehearing Granted in Part and C.J., RABINOWITZ, and Before 26,1986. Amended June BURKE, MATTHEWS, and COMPTON MOORE, JJ.
OPINION
PER CURIAM. petition. presented are in this
Two issues (1) may court
They are: whether a trial in-
give an objection a defendant’s over unanimously jurors
struction that must greater guilty not of a
find the defendant they a verdict may before render
offense in- any guilty he is of lesser
on whether offense, (2) double and whether
cluded charged reprosecution for a
jeopardy bars it is jury the that
offense where indicates that offense to reach a verdict as to
unable de- mistrial over
and the court declares a the permitting rather objection
fense than included
jury to as a lesser deliberate to
offense.