Opinion ID: 1172266
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instructions 20 through 29

Text: Instructions 20 through 29 identified the State's nine claims against ANI, grouped by transaction. [23] ANI argues that the trial court erred by allowing the jury discretion to go outside the specific statutory violations alleged in the complaint, and that the instructions fail[ed] to connect to any allegation in the complaint. [24] With respect to ANI's first argument, each claim in the second amended complaint included an allegation that ANI violated AS 45.50.471(a) in the relevant transaction. Subsection (a) generally outlaws unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce. Subsection (b) gives specific examples of acts or practices that would violate subsection (a), but subsection (c) makes it clear that the list is not exclusive. [25] ANI's argument amounts to a claim that the State should have been limited to the list in subsection (b). That argument is groundless. Subsection (a) is not limited to the examples listed in subsection (b). We reject ANI's argument that the instructions are not closely connected with the allegations in the complaint. Instruction 11 gave the jury an understanding of unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Instructions 21 through 29 exactly track the second amended complaint with regard to the alleged facts. Instruction 20 told the jury how to apply the facts to the law. The instructions were clear. The superior court committed no error in connection with the jury instructions.