Opinion ID: 1124484
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ambiguity as to the Required Mens Rea under Former AS 46.03.790(a) Mandates Application of the Criminal Negligence Standard.

Text: The court does not deny that there is an ambiguity as to the mens rea required for conviction under former AS 46.03.790(a). [1] Ambiguities in criminal statutes must be narrowly read and construed strictly against the government. State v. Andrews, 707 P.2d 900, 907 (Alaska App. 1985), opinion adopted by State v. Andrews, 723 P.2d 85, 86 (Alaska 1986); see also Wells v. State, 706 P.2d 711, 713 (Alaska App. 1985) (It is well established that, in accordance with the rule of lenity, ambiguities in penal statutes must be resolved in favor of the accused.); Manderson v. State, 655 P.2d 1320, 1323 (Alaska App. 1983) (Since the provision is ambiguous and both the state's and [the defendant's] interpretations are arguably reasonable, we agree that [the defendant's interpretation] should prevail under the Bell [v. U.S., 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955)] `rule of lenity.'). Accordingly, the statute must be construed to require criminal negligence, rather than civil negligence. [2] That should end the discussion.