Court Opinion

ID: 9538543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:37:37.933843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:58.280819
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
Making no allowance for the trial court’s broad discretion in factual matters and mistakenly construing the record in the light most favorable to Moss, the majority of the court substitutes its judgment for Judge Rowland’s, concluding that Moss was in *676custody when questioned, even though Moss was in his own home, all weapons initially displayed by the police had been put away, and Moss had been expressly told that he was not under arrest, that the sole purpose of the police presence was to perform a search of the premises pursuant to a warrant, and that the police would depart as soon as the search was completed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, see Hubert v. State, 638 P.2d 677, 683 (Alaska App.1981), I would conclude that Judge Rowland was not clearly erroneous in determining that Moss was questioned in a noncustodial setting. Lowry v. State, 707 P.2d 280, 284 (Alaska App.1985); Hubert v. State, 638 P.2d at 687-88.
Accordingly, I dissent.