Legal Opinion

Cockerham v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1997No. S-7251PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RABINOWITZ, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

At issue is whether a defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights were violated by the superior court’s failure to grant his motion for in camera review of alleged juvenile records of a prosecution witness testifying at sentencing. More generally, this ease impacts a defendant’s right to discovery at sentencing.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On May 28, 1992, Ernest Cockerham was convicted of two counts of sexual assault of sixteen-year-old R.J. 1 Prior to sentencing, the State filed notice of its intent to request that Cockerham’s sentence be…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Townsend v. BurkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  5. Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Lowell v. HayesAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  2. C.R.B. v. C.C.Alaska Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Dobos v. IngersollAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Zaverl v. HanleyAlaska Supreme Court · 2003

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API