Court Opinion

ID: 9628833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:32:45.838144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:19.864498
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, C. J.,
with whom RABI-NOWITZ, J., joins, concurring.
For the reasons set forth in Footnote 39 of the opinion in Wessells v. State, 562 P.2d 1042 (Alaska 1977), I believe that in all cases the introduction of relevant extrinsic evidence should be allowed to determine the reasonable expectations of the parties. I do not think that the trial court should be obliged to utilize the two-tiered approach of first considering extrinsic evidence in order to determine whether the term is ambiguous and then utilizing the same evidence to interpret the ambiguity. Instead, I believe that courts should be permitted to hear evidence as to all relevant circumstances bearing on the construction of a disputed term and then utilize that evidence in interpreting the language in question. My views on this subject are amplified in Footnote 39 of the Wessells opinion.