Peterson v. State

598 P.2d 94, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 533
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 3, 1979
DocketNo. 3813
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 598 P.2d 94 (Peterson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peterson v. State, 598 P.2d 94, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 533 (Ala. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were convicted by a jury in the district court at Kodiak, Superior Court Judge Roy H. Madsen presiding, of commercial fishing in closed waters, a violation of 5 AAC 39.290(a).1 Their convictions were affirmed by the superior court. On this appeal, they primarily contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment of acquittal. They argue that there was insufficient evidence to establish their identities as those involved in fishing [95]*95a gill net stretched across the Humpy River, a major pink salmon spawning stream in the southwest part of Kodiak Island. We hold that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion since fair-minded people, in the exercise of reasonable judgment, could differ on the question of whether guilt had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.2

We find no merit in the additional contention that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the testimony of a veteran Kodiak fisherman as to an alleged custom of cutting nets found in salmon streams. There must be a factual foundation for an expert’s testimony.3 The theory that these commercial fishermen went ashore for the purpose of cutting a freshly strung net in an isolated area located upstream of the mouth of the river so as not to be visible from a boat strains credulity. There was no factual basis established to the effect that these fishermen observed the net while fishing, and went ashore for the purpose of cutting it. Nor was there any plausible evidence of why during fishing hours they went ashore and came across a freshly strung net in this isolated area. We therefore need not address the question of whether the proposed testimony would otherwise have been admissible.

The convictions are AFFIRMED.

RABINOWITZ, C. J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

New v. State
714 P.2d 378 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
598 P.2d 94, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-state-alaska-1979.