Price v. State
This text of 590 P.2d 419 (Price 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.
Opinion
OPINION
In this appeal we are asked to determine whether certain evidence was properly considered by the superior court in determining appellant’s guilt.
On July 11, 1976, at about 3:00 a. m., appellant Warren Price was driving a Dat-sun pickup truck on South Cushman Street in Fairbanks. He was in pursuit of an automobile driven by William Burton, in which James Underwood and Robert Williams were passengers. Appellant had in his possession a .44 magnum revolver loaded with “birdshot” ammunition. Upon reaching the Burton vehicle, appellant stopped the truck, rolled down his window, and pointed the revolver toward the three men. They dropped down within the car for pro[420]*420tection. A shot was fired, which hit the driver’s door and shattered the window.
Price was arrested and charged with three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of AS 11.15.220.1 The arresting officer testified that at the time he arrested Price he found one bag of marijuana in Price’s vehicle and another on his person. At trial to the court, objection was raised to the introduction of this testimony. The court overruled the objection.
Assuming, arguendo, that the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless error in the circumstances of this case.
The case was tried to the court, rather than a jury, minimizing any prejudicial effect of such evidence. Additionally, the possession of a small amount of marijuana is not a major offense.2
In Post v. State, 580 P.2d 304, 308 (Alaska 1978), we held that admission of conduct involving a relatively minor crime was at most harmless error because it was unlikely to prejudice the trier of fact in evaluating the conduct of the defendant.
Within the context of a court tried case and in light of the total record, therefore, the admission of testimony regarding appellant’s possession of marijuana was harmless error. We affirm the conviction.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
590 P.2d 419, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-state-alaska-1979.