Harris v. State, 6580
| Court | Court of Appeals of Alaska |
| Writing for the Court | Before BRYNER; COATS; Our dissenting colleague; It is possible that the rule which Judge Singleton suggests would be appropriate. However, we believe that the best way to evaluate such a suggestion would be to propose an amendment to the criminal rul |
| Citation | 678 P.2d 397 |
| Parties | Malcolm Scott HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 6580,6580 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1984 |
Steven P. Oliver, Anchorage, for appellant.
Charles M. Merriner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, and Norman C. Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.
Before BRYNER, C.J., COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.
On the evening of December 11, 1980, Bob Mitchell, Malcolm Harris, and Richard Farmer drove to Clark Garvin's home in Anchorage in order to buy cocaine. Since Garvin was not at home, Mitchell kicked in the door. Mitchell and Farmer returned to the car after a few minutes with about two pounds of marijuana, some cocaine, a set of scales, and $14,000 worth of traveler's checks.
In order to cash the traveler's checks, Harris obtained a birth certificate form which he completed in the name of Clark Garvin. He then obtained a State of Alaska identification card in the name of Clark Garvin. He forged Garvin's name on the traveler's checks. Mitchell and Harris then flew to Seattle, where Harris forged Garvin's name to the checks. Mitchell and Harris cashed thousands of dollars worth of checks in Seattle. After returning to Anchorage, Harris's brother cashed about $2,000 worth of the checks.
On November 4, 1981, a jury found Harris guilty of theft in the second degree and forgery in the second degree. Judge Ripley sentenced Harris to an aggregate term of eight years with five years suspended. Harris was also ordered to pay restitution in an amount not to exceed $7,000. Harris has appealed to this court raising several issues concerning his conviction and sentence. We affirm.
Harris first contends that the grand jury which returned the indictment against him was improperly constituted and therefore the indictment should have been dismissed. Before trial, Harris's counsel filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had been informed by court personnel that one grand juror resided 176 miles from the Anchorage courthouse and that two other grand jurors were from Palmer. 1 Harris claims that at least one of the grand jurors and perhaps all three served in violation of Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(c)(1) which requires grand jurors to be "selected from the population within a fifty-mile radius of the place where the grand jury is convened...." We conclude that even if the three jurors were selected from beyond a fifty-mile radius of the Anchorage courthouse, this is not the sort of error which should lead to the dismissal of an indictment. There is no showing that there was any systematic exclusion of any class or group from the grand jury or that Harris was prejudiced in any conceivable way. Peterson v. State, 562 P.2d 1350, 1366 (Alaska 1977). See AS 9.20.040.
Harris next argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress two inculpatory statements.
About one month after the Anchorage interview, Harris was arrested in Homer and was interviewed by Homer Police Chief Michael Daugherty. The arrest was on an unrelated misdemeanor charge. A major portion of this interview was videotaped. Harris claims that the statement which he made was the product of threats and coercion. Harris claims that he was threatened with a sexual assault charge and that Daugherty promised to help him if he confessed. The following are some critical statements which took place in the interview:
(Emphasis added.)
Daugherty said that Harris's "only hope" was to tell him everything he knew about the Garvin case.
(Emphasis added.)
Later in the interview, Harris asked whether he was going to be charged in relation to his alleged forgery of traveler's checks.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephan v. State, s. S-387
...under a duty to record statements which suspects make where recording is feasible. That admonition cannot be ignored." Harris v. State, 678 P.2d 397, 404 (Alaska App.1984). 8 The court, nevertheless, refused to adopt a general exclusionary rule, stating: [W]e believe that the issue of what ......
-
Cole v. State, A-5532
...are "not improper as long as, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's confession is voluntary." Harris v. State, 678 P.2d 397, 405-06 (Alaska App.1984), rev'd on other grounds sub nom., Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985); see also Stobaugh v. State, 614 P.2d 767,......
-
Thorne v. Department of Public Safety, State of Alaska, S-2566
...have been different from the testimony at trial and would have been helpful to defendant"); see also Harris v. State, 678 P.2d 397, 413-14 (Alaska App.1984) (Singleton, J., dissenting); People v. Hitch, 12 Cal.3d 641, 117 Cal.Rptr. 9, 527 P.2d 361 (1974); Bryant, 439 F.2d at 652-53.13 Artic......
-
Ridgely v. State, s. A-30
...this occasion to explain the effect on our conclusion of the state's failure to record Ridgely's full interrogation. In Harris v. State, 678 P.2d 397 (Alaska App.1984), rev'd (Alaska Supreme Court Order, February 1, 1985) (opinion to follow), we held that the police are under a constitution......