Legal Opinion
Bostic v. State
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided January 25, 1991No. S-3337PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COMPTON, Justice.
The court of appeals held that because Robert James Bostic had not shown that his defense was prejudiced by the state’s failure to disclose the identity of a key prosecution witness until after trial had begun, his only remedy was a continuance. On Bostic’s petition we reverse and hold that the party violating Alaska Criminal Rule 16(b)(1)® has the burden of showing that the non-offending party has not been prejudiced' in the manner he specifically claims. If this burden is not met in regard to a violation of the Rule which surfaces during trial, and the party…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Love v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1969
- Des Jardins v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
- Cumbie v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1977
- State v. GrimmWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
- Warrick v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Steward v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. J.Q.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1991
- Williams v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
- Jurco v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1992
- Russell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1997
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.