Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available by Touch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions

Touch N' Go, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website.
  This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
www.gottsteinLaw.com

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices.

Alaska v. Summerville (11/14/97), 948 P 2d 469

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal correction before publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA STATE OF ALASKA, ) Supreme Court No. S-7869 ) Petitioner, ) Court of Appeals No. A-6422 ) Superior Court No. v. ) 4FA-S96-564 Cr. ) DAVID E. SUMMERVILLE, ) O P I N I O N ) Respondent. ) ______________________________) [No. 4904 - November 14, 1997] Petition for Hearing from the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska, on Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Richard D. Savell, Judge. Appearances: Eric A. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General, Juneau, for Petitioner. William R. Satterberg, Jr., Law Offices of William R. Satterberg, Jr., Fairbanks, for Respondent. Marcia E. Holland, Assistant Public Defender, Fairbanks, and Barbara K. Brink, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Alaska Public Defender Agency. James H. McComas, Pro Bono Counsel, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Office of Public Advocacy. Before: Matthews, Chief Justice, Compton, Eastaugh, and Fabe, Justices. [Bryner, Justice, not participating.] PER CURIAM. The decision in this case is controlled by Scott v. State, 519 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1974), unless we are persuaded to overrule Scott. In State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986), we stated: We do not lightly overrule our past decisions. . . . [I]t is a "salutory policy to follow past decisions.". . . [W]here we are "clearly convinced the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent,"we will so depart. Id. at 610 (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Souter, 606 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1980)). We are not persuaded that these standards are met, at least with respect to Scott's holding that the production of the names of non-alibi witnesses and their statements cannot be constitutionally compelled. Because the reciprocal discovery provisions enacted in section 1 of Chapter 95 SLA 1996 are non-severable, and at least one of those provisions violates article I, section 9 of Alaska's constitution, the entire section is invalid. The pre-existing version of Alaska Criminal Rule 16 must remain in effect. AFFIRMED.