Opinion ID: 1288267
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Beilgard's Guilt

Text: We first consider the effect of Beilgard's guilt on his claim that the arrest caused him to suffer damages. Beilgard argues that it was error to enter the orders disposing of his claims and proposed claims because there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the State's alleged negligent acts leading to the arrest. The State raises numerous theories to support affirmance. Because it is dispositive, we consider only the public policy issue. We have consistently recognized that public policy precludes a criminal defendant convicted of a crime from imposing liability on others for the consequences of his own antisocial conduct. Shaw v. State, Dept. of Admin., 861 P.2d 566, 571-72 (Alaska 1993) ( Shaw II ) (concerning convicted criminal's malpractice suit against his former criminal defense attorney); Lord v. Fogcutter Bar, 813 P.2d 660, 663 (Alaska 1991) (holding dram shop statute did not protect bar patron from the consequences of his own intentional, criminal misconduct); Adkinson v. Rossi Arms Co., 659 P.2d 1236, 1240 (Alaska 1983) (barring suit against shotgun manufacturer by assailant for damages resulting from his manslaughter conviction). [5] In Shaw II we stated: As we did in Adkinson and Lord, we hold that if plaintiffs engaged in the criminal conduct they are accused of, then they alone should bear full responsibility for the consequences of their acts, including imprisonment. Shaw II, 861 P.2d at 572. [6] Beilgard failed to establish any genuine fact dispute about his guilt on the five counts on which he was charged, including the two counts to which he pled no contest and on which he was sentenced. [7] Public policy consequently bars his claims against the State.