Kusmider v state 688

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Kusmider v state 688

Visit Touch N' Go's Website. This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business. You can also search the entire site. This opinion is subject to formal correction before publication in the Pacific Reporter.

Readers are requested to bring typographical or other formal errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, K Street, Anchorage, Alaskain order that corrections may be made prior to permanent publication.

A Appellant, Trial Court No. Baily, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellant. Malone, fleeing from a traffic stop, led police on a high-speed chase through Fairbanks. During the chase, a police car collided with a vehicle driven by another motorist; both the officer and the motorist were injured.

A grand jury returned a multi-count indictment against Malone.

Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Two of the counts charged Malone with assault against the police officer and against the motorist. Responding to Malone's pre-trial motion, Superior Court Judge Jay Hodges dismissed these two assault charges; Judge Hodges ruled that the grand jury had been inadequately instructed on legal concepts of causation.

The State of Alaska has appealed. We reverse the superior court's decision and reinstate the two assault charges. A computer check showed that Malone did not have a valid driver's license. Officer Williamson asked Malone to get out of his car; Malone refused.

When Williamson started to open the door of Malone's car, Malone put the car in gear and drove away. Williamson jumped into his patrol vehicle and gave chase.

Kusmider v state 688

During the ensuing high-speed chase through the streets of Fairbanks, Williamson's patrol vehicle collided with a third car driven by Michael Hildebrandt.

Williamson's left leg was broken above the ankle. Hildebrandt suffered more serious injuries: Based upon the injuries suffered by Williamson and Hildebrandt in this motor vehicle collision, Malone was indicted for first-degree assault on Hildebrandt reckless infliction of serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument, AS Malone asked the superior court to dismiss these two assault charges, arguing that the grand jury had been misinstruct ed on the law of proximate cause.

Specifically, Malone argued that the collision could have been due to either Williamson's or Hildebrandt's negligent conduct, and that their negligence could have constituted a "superseding" or "intervening" cause of the collision.State, P.2d , (Alaska ).

Of course, in every criminal case the state must establish and the jury must find that the defendant's conduct was the actual cause, or cause-in-fact, of the crime charged in the indictment.

State, P.2d , (Alaska ). Of course, in every criminal case the state must establish and the jury must find that the defendant's conduct was the actual cause, or cause-in-fact, of the crime charged in the indictment.

See State v. Soucy, N.H. , A.2d , () (stating “if some evidence is offered, ․ which is reasonably calculated to provide a reasonable doubt on the issue of causation, it must be admitted and the element of causation, with the supported defense, must be submitted to the jury”).

Case opinion for WY Supreme Court SANCHEZ v. STATE. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. Arizona v. United States The case of Arizona v.

State, P.2d , (Alaska ). Of course, in every criminal case the state must establish and the jury must find that the defendant's conduct was the actual cause, or cause-in-fact, of the crime charged in the indictment. F. 3d 97 CJ C.A.R. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Lee SWALLOW, Defendant-Appellant. No. . Kusmider, P.2d at ; State v. Inger, N.W.2d , (Iowa ). This rule of law that negligence of the victim or of third persons will not dispel a defendant's responsibility for an injury or death is simply a specific application of the general rule that a defendant who acts with the required culpable mental state will be held.

United States is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of the state of Arizona trying to enact laws against illegal aliens inside the state’s borders. Opinion for Kusmider v. State, P.2d — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

FindACase™ | Kusmider v. State