Alaska Supreme Court· 6/27/2014

Johnson v. State

Citations

328 P.3d 77
2014 WL 2917479
2014 Alas. LEXIS 125

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

addressing only whether separate punishments could stand for Johnson's sexual penetration of the victim's vagina and mouth
holding certain “claims of fundamental error . . . may be raised for the first time on appeal and will be reviewed on the merits in full, regardless of whether the claimed errors would qualify as plain under the plain error doctrine”
“[T]he general preservation rule [for appealable error] is not absolute, and it is subject to prudential exceptions.”
\The proper extent of appellate review for an unpreserved claim of constitutional error is a question of law ....\
“[T]he general preservation rule is not absolute, and it is subject to prudential exceptions, such as the plain error doctrine.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fabe, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

74 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.