Court Opinion

ID: 9632706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:22:13.141375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:21.540104
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In our opinion affirming Carr’s conviction, we concluded, in part, that “it seems virtually inconceivable that Carr’s incriminating statements were in any realistic sense the product of ‘coercion resulting] from the interaction of custody and official interrogation.’ ” See, pp. 1004-05. In reaching this conclusion, we mentioned, among other circumstances, that “Nothing concerning the nature or timing of the call [Carr received from Sandra Y.] appears to have been unusual. Carr was evidently entitled to receive or reject telephone calls from outside the Fairbanks Correctional Center.” Id. at 1004.
On rehearing, Carr challenges the accuracy of this statement, citing passages from the trial court record to indicate that “The Alaska State Troopers made special arrangements for Sandra Y[.] to be able to call Mr. Carr.” The cited passages, however, establish only that the Troopers intervened to enable Sandra Y. to place a call she might not otherwise have been allowed. They neither suggest nor establish any intervention by the Troopers altering the nature or circumstances of Carr’s custody, or otherwise taking advantage of his incarceration to gain any potentially coercive advantage.
For these reasons, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.