State v. Serdahely

Decided November 10, 1981

Alaska Supreme Court · decided 1981-11-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“This court adopts pursuant to its supervisory powers as a rule of practice the provisions of Rule 732 of the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure including subsection (b) relating to the nature and scope of immunity for the reasons expressed in the commentary to the rule.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Gonzalez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-11-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2010

1 district · 9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

¶2 1. The Original Application for Relief filed in the Court of Appeals on October 26, 1981, certified to and accepted by this court pursuant to AS 22.05.015(b) and Appellate Rule 408(b), is granted.

¶3 2. The Order of the Superior Court of October 15, 1981 entitled Denial of State’s Application to Compel Testimony of Michael DeMan and Denial of State’s Motion to Stay Hohman’s Trial, is affirmed.

¶4 3. This court adopts pursuant to its supervisory powers as a rule of practice the provisions of Rule 732 of the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure including subsection (b) relating to the nature and scope of immunity for the reasons expressed in the commentary to the rule.

COMPTON, J., not participating.