Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Gerlach v. State

699 P.2d 358 (1985)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Gerlach v. State

Alaska Court of Appeals

699 P.2d 358 (1985)

Facts

When they divorced, Helena Gerlach (defendant) and Robert Faro contested custody of their daughter, Angela. Faro was originally married to Gerlach’s half-sister and had custody of their children. A court-appointed psychologist who interviewed Gerlach and Faro recommended that Angela remain with Gerlach. But Gerlach stipulated to Faro’s keeping temporary custody until the final divorce was entered, and the same judge who awarded Faro custody in his first divorce authorized the agreement. Concerned Faro would take Angela out of Alaska, Gerlach obtained a restraining order to prevent him from doing so. But three weeks later, Gerlach picked up Angela from Faro’s babysitter, flew to Washington, and hid Angela for over a year. Gerlach asserted necessity in defense to the resulting custodial-interference charges. Before trial, Gerlach made an offer of proof that described evidence showing Faro posed a threat of imminent harm that justified hiding Angela. Gerlach planned to testify that Faro did not take proper care of Angela and was abusive. Faro’s first wife and son would have corroborated that testimony, and the court-appointed psychologist would have said he recommended Angela stay with Gerlach. But the judge found Gerlach’s offer of proof insufficient and entered a protective order preventing her from raising the necessity defense at trial. Gerlach was convicted of custodial interference and appealed, arguing the judge should have allowed her necessity defense.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Singleton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 518,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership