Legal Opinion

Johnson v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 2010No. S-13023PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WINFREE, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

We are asked in this petition for hearing to clarify the standard of foreseeability for a criminal prosecution based on reckless conduct.

A defendant is responsible for the natural consequences of his or her act or failure to act. But the defendant's liability for harm to another is not limitless because natural consequences are those a reasonable person could have foreseen. If the trier of fact finds a general type of harm was foreseeable, then the trier of fact must determine whether the actual harm was within the scope of risk hazarded by the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Neitzel v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1982
  2. Beck v. State, Department of Transportation & Public FacilitiesAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Pears v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State v. LoseyOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Wren v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Johnson v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Haines v. Comfort Keepers, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Brianna Marie Peterson v. Municipality of AnchorageCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2021
  4. Byron F. Geisinger v. State of Alaska, State of Alaska v. Byron F. GeisingerCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2021
  5. State of Alaska v. Brennan Adam GrubbAlaska Supreme Court · 2024

2 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