McKillop v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a statute prohibiting obscene telephone calls made with the intent to harass another did not violate the First Amendment so long as calls with a legitimate communicative purpose are permitted
• construing AS 11.61.120(a)(4) to require proof that annoyance or harassment was the defendant's sole intent
• applying harmless error review to instruction's erroneous definition of intent required to convict for telephone harassment
• constitutional error is a ground for reversal of conviction unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• Alaska’s telephone harassment statute “must be interpreted to prohibit telephone calls only when the call has no legitimate communicative purpose — when the caller’s speech is devoid of any substantive information and the caller’s sole intention is to annoy or harass the recipient”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).