Legal Opinion
Mangiapane v. Municipality of Anchorage
Court of Appeals of Alaska
Decided March 19, 1999No. A-6888PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
Steven A. Mangiapane appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. 1 He contends that the police denied him a fair opportunity to consult privately with an attorney before deciding whether to take an Intoxime-ter test. Mangiapane also contends that the trial judge should have instructed his jury that Intoximeters, even when functioning properly, can yield results that vary as much as .01 percent from a person’s true blood- or breath-alcohol level. For the reasons explained here, we reject both of Mangiapane’s arguments and we affirm his conviction.
Shortly…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Farrell v. Municipality of AnchorageCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1984
- Haynes v. State, Department of Public SafetyAlaska Supreme Court · 1993
- Municipality of Anchorage v. RayCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1993
- Municipality of Anchorage v. MarrsCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1985
- Kiehl v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Administration v. LytleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Conrad v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2002
- Bertilson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2003
- Bushnell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2000
- Alexander v. Municipality of AnchorageCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.