Court Opinion

ID: 9542191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:31:44.279355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:59.978358
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
dissenting in part.
For the reasons stated in my dissent in Johnson v. State, 577 P.2d 1063, Opinion No. 1612 (Alaska, May 5, 1978), I believe that the sealed verdict procedure followed by the superior court was harmless error. This court has now amended Criminal Rule 31(f) to permit the non-consensual use of a sealed verdict. The court has therefore recognized that this procedure does not harm the rights of an accused in a criminal case. That recognition should govern here. Thus, I would affirm appellant’s conviction for joyriding. With the remainder of the opinion, I agree.