Home/Alaska Supreme Court/State v. Souter

State v. Souter

606 P.2d 399, 1980 Alas. LEXIS 518
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 1980
Docket4380, 4400
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 606 P.2d 399 (State v. Souter) 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
State v. Souter, 606 P.2d 399, 1980 Alas. LEXIS 518 (Ala. 1980).

Opinions

OPINION

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

MATTHEWS, Justice.

Appellee caused the deaths of three individuals while driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was convicted on three counts of manslaughter and given one sentence for all three counts, five years of imprisonment with three and one-half years suspended.

The state has appealed and petitioned for review, contending that a general [400]*400sentence should not be given on multiple counts except where multiple sentences would be illegal. The state acknowledges that our holding in Thessen v. State, 508 P.2d 1192 (Alaska 1973) precluded multiple sentences in this case and argues that Thessen was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

We held in Thessen :

[wjhere there has been but one statute violated by a single act, without intent to harm multiple victims, the Alaskan constitutional prohibition against placing a person in jeopardy twice for the same offense prevents imposition of multiple punishments.

Id. at 1195. We reaffirmed Thessen in State v. Gibson, 543 P.2d 406, 408 (Alaska 1975). The Thessen holding has been a part of the jurisprudence of this state for nine years. While it is a salutary policy to follow past decisions,1 the rule of stare decisis will not preclude reversing a former case where the court is “clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent.” 1B J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.402 at 154-55 (1974); see In re G.K., 497 P.2d 914, 916-17 (Alaska 1972). See also, Poloron Products, Inc. v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, 72 F.R.D. 556, 562 (S.D.N.Y.1976); Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 579 F.2d 1038, 1050 (7th Cir. 1978).

This standard has not been met here. So far as we are aware, Thessen has caused no injustice in any case to any party. Certainly here it has not done so, for the state does not contend that the sentence appellee received is too lenient in terms of time to be served or the length of probation. On this record we decline to reconsider Thessen.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Wilson v. State
207 P.3d 565 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 2009)
Doe v. State
189 P.3d 999 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2008)
Erickson v. State
950 P.2d 580 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1997)
State v. Summerville
948 P.2d 469 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1997)
State v. Fremgen
914 P.2d 1244 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1996)
Beesley v. Van Doren
873 P.2d 1280 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1994)
Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan
852 P.2d 1173 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1993)
State v. Dunlop
721 P.2d 604 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1986)
Dunlop v. State
696 P.2d 687 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1985)
Calder v. State
619 P.2d 1026 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1980)
State v. Souter
606 P.2d 399 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
606 P.2d 399, 1980 Alas. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-souter-alaska-1980.