Glover v. State, 011520 AKCA, A-12663
|Party Name:||KEVIN GLOVER, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Bradly A. Carlson, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Fabe, Senior Supreme Court Justice, and Andrews, Senior Superior Court Judge.|
|Case Date:||January 15, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Alaska|
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court, Trial Court No. 3AN-15-01543 CR Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Paul E. Olson, Judge.
Bradly A. Carlson, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Fabe, Senior Supreme Court Justice, and Andrews, Senior Superior Court Judge. [*]
Kevin Glover was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance, driving with a revoked license, fourth-degree weapons misconduct (possession of a weapon while under the influence), and third-degree weapons misconduct (felon in possession) after he collided with a road sign while under the influence of methamphetamine.1 He raises three arguments on appeal. We find no merit to these arguments and we therefore affirm his convictions.
First, Glover argues that the State failed to provide timely notice of its intent to call an expert witness, and that the superior court erred when it allowed that witness to testify. Eight days before the trial was scheduled to begin, the State notified Glover's defense counsel that it intended to call a forensic scientist to testify about the levels of methamphetamine in Glover's blood at the time of the accident. Glover asked the court to preclude the expert's testimony because the expert notice was untimely under Alaska Criminal Rule 16. The court acknowledged that the notice was untimely and that Glover was prejudiced, but proposed to continue the trial to give Glover's attorney more time to prepare. Glover's attorney rejected this proposal and elected to proceed with the trial as planned.
On appeal, Glover argues that the court erred when it failed to place the burden on the State to demonstrate why Glover was not prejudiced by the State's discovery violation, and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP