Legal Opinion
Resek v. State
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided October 15, 1985No. S-205PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., ■ and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ. RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice.
This petition presents the question of whether an indigent claimant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at public expense in an in rem forfeiture proceeding. We hold that such an action is not a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of Article 1, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution, which provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to ... have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” However, we recognize the potential for unfairness…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Scott v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. AlbertAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
- Medlock v. One 1985 Jeep Cherokee Vin 1JCWB7828FT129001Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
- Commonwealth v. $9,847.00 U.S. CurrencySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Armstrong v. TanakaAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
- Badoino v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.