Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Ostrosky v. State II

Alaska Court of Appeals
725 P.2d 1087 (1986)


Facts

In 1983, Harold Ostrosky (defendant) was caught fishing without the limited-entry permit required under the Limited Entry Act (the act). In 1981, the act had been held unconstitutional, but this decision was appealed by the state (plaintiff) and reversed in July 1983. Ostrosky was ultimately convicted for the 1983 violation. He appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a mistake-of-law defense. The appeals court remanded the case to allow Ostrosky to build this defense. During the hearing on remand, Ostrosky called his attorney, Frederick Paul, as a witness. Paul testified that he had represented Ostrosky between 1978 and 1983 in Ostrosky’s challenges to the act and his accompanying fishing violations. Paul stated that, after the 1981 decision declaring the act unconstitutional and the state’s subsequent appeal, he did not advise Ostrosky that he was free to fish. He told Ostrosky about the risks of fishing and noted there was a chance the decision could be reversed on appeal. Ostrosky also testified at the hearing, arguing that he had reasonably relied on the 1981 decision declaring the act unconstitutional. He stated that he had also read an article reporting that other courts had held the act unconstitutional as well. The superior court judge noted a discrepancy between the case Ostrosky put forth at the hearing on remand and the facts of his 1983 trial. Notably, in 1983, Ostrosky made the assertion that Paul had advised him that he would not be arrested for fishing without a permit. At the hearing on remand, however, Paul denied this. The judge further held that no reasonable person could rely on the 1981 decision because it was on appeal. Ostrosky knew the law and ignored it. The judge held that Ostrosky had not proven his defense by a preponderance of the evidence, as required. Ostrosky’s original sentence was imposed, and he appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Coats, 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 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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 & Answers


Have a question about this case?

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

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial