Court Opinion

ID: 9787368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:15:16.884345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:55.254871
License: Public Domain

COATS, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with my colleagues that Dandova's heat of passion defense had some significant problems and was very weak. But Dandova was entitled to a jury trial and it was up to the jury to determine whether Dandova established that she acted in the heat of passion.
The Alaska Supreme Court has stated that "any weakness or implausibility in the evidence supporting [a defendant's] story is not a relevant consideration."1 The legislature's description of when the defendant's conduct is mitigated by heat of passion as codified in AS 11.41.115(a) appears to me to be fairly straight forward. And, of course, the trial court has the discretion to address any lack of clarity by giving supplemental instructions. In my view, the trial court should have instructed the jury on heat of passion and should have let the jury decide whether Dandova acted in the heat of passion.

. Toomey v. State, 581 P.2d 1124, 1126 n. 10 (Alaska 1978); see also Houston v. State, 602 P.2d 784, 785 (Alaska 1979); Folger v. State, 648 P.2d 111, 114 (Alaska App.1982).