KARR v. ALASKA

in re: Alaska v. Karr

ISSUE:

What constitutes an excessive sentence for punishment of embezzlement under Alaska state law?

RULE:

Under Alaska law, as amended, a person convicted of embezzlement in a serious offense is subject to imprisonment for not less than one, nor more than ten years. The law was amended in 1980. The crime under discussion took place between 1979 and 1981.

ANALYSIS

Karr was a trusted employee at a real estate firm, entrusted with handling the firm’s financial affairs. Over a period of two years, from 1979 to 1981, Karr abused her position of trust to take personal possession of company funds in the amount of $350,000.

Though the offenses that led to the conviction occurred under different legal conditions, Karr was sentenced under the new law. Because of the severity of her offense, and the fact that it would be difficult to impossible for the company to recover the amount of lost moneys, and Karr would face hardship in restitution after completing her sentence, the judge sentenced her to consecutive five-year terms for the two counts to which she pled no contest.

Her argument that the sentence was excessive for a first offense is juxtaposed with the impact her actions have had, and will continue to have for her former employer. The judge took this into account when imposing the punishment.

*Karr knew she was stealing from her employer.

*Karr knew she was converting company funds to her personal use.

Kerr knew she was violating her position of trust.

*Karr committed a serious offense under two different laws.

CONCLUSION

While this was a first offense, it was serious enough to lead to consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.

ROOM

Room

To breathe,

To move,

To stretch one’s arms

And not touch

Walls,

Membrane strong enough,

Yet permeable,

Allows the world in,

Or keeps the world out.

Off the walls

Pictures fall.

She moves out.

He moves in,

Possessions pass

Each other

At close--but not too close--

Proximity.

Stories in.

Stories out.

Dreams yet unborn

Meet dreams

Deflated, plans

Abandoned.

Too much room

To fill with new life,

Too many square feet

For just a bed, a

Dresser, a

Closet for clothes

And secrets--

Somewhere to hide

Birthday and Christmas gifts

Perhaps music

Will fill all this space,

Squeeze out/

Chase out the remnants

Of loneliness

A previous tenant forgot

To pack in the last boxes

They carried out.

How old

Is this living space,

How full

Of histories

Can one room be?

How many angels...?

Rooms with

Doors, with

Windows with

Curtains--maybe

Lock the door.

Turn off the lights.

Don’t make a sound

And maybe

Come in if

You dare--

If you can--

If you know

The password,

The past word

Paced over the floor,

Pasted on the wall

Behind the plaster.
Knock. knock.

Visitor or

Violator,

Visionaries welcome--all

Others must be announced.

Copyright (c) 2011 by the author

VERTIGO

IT IS LIKE

Standing on

A carousel going

Backwards,

Moving sometimes

Fast, sometimes

Slow, but never

Stopping so I

Can step off.

When I move, I

Move faster,

Hoping momentum will

Keep me from falling,

Backward, sideways.

This instability,

This imbalance

Shrinks the world

To the next step,

Then the next:

I refuse to

Fall.

STRANGERS

So, yes, I burned

The bridge some twenty

Paces back,

No regret,

Without hesitation.

Anger, mixed with

Despair allowed me

To wash my hands,

Clean of a score

Of years of memory.

The links--

Once golden,

And highly prized--

Are covered with dust,

Consumed by

Cobwebs

Of silence.

I knew what

I was doing,

With an evening’s

Anger still in my head,

When I left,

When I lit the match

And watched the flame

Greedily devour all

Secrets, unbreakable

Bonds

That would forever

Separate me

From a childhood friend.

We weren’t kids

Anymore. We were

Building diverging

Lives where

There would be no

Room,

No empty chair,

No place to sleep,

Or talk

Until dawn.

Strangers, once, we

Are strangers once again.

Copyright (c) 2011 by the author

SOWERS v. CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

IN RE: SOWERS V. CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION

ISSUE:

Did Clinton Central School Corporation exercise proper care in handling the dehydration of respondent’s son, or did they neglect to take measures that would have kept the child alive?

HOLDING

The court ruled that the school district did exercise proper care that they took appropriate actions to try to head off what eventually happened. It ruled, also, that the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

ANALYSIS

The facts we are given seem to concur with the outcome reached by the court. There had been some issues of heat-related health problems the day before the death of the plaintiff’s son. Given this, and the heat wave still being in effect, the coaching staff changed the practice regimen, making it less stressful, and allowing for more frequent water breaks so that the players could continue to hydrate themselves. Furthermore, they continued the policy of “no contact”, made water breaks more frequent, and kept a close eye on all the players in an attempt to head off any dehydration. They particularly, for this case, checked in with Travis repeatedly throughout the practice. Each time, Travis asserted that he was okay. Whenever there was a question, one of the staff intervened.

Plaintiff, and their son, voluntarily signed the waivers required for participation in the football training camp. Both Travis and his parents were aware of the risks of participating in the football training. (Travis had prepared for this by working on the farm and engaging in strenuous activity before the training camp began.)

Perhaps an argument might have been made that Travis, being a minor, lacked the capacity to fully understand symptoms that would lead to his death, but plaintiff didn’t raise this as a claim to support their claim of negligence and less than the standard of care for their son. Though the staff kept after Travis about hydration, it might have been the case that Travis was unfamiliar with just what dehydration would do to his body. Perhaps he was more interested in being with his peers, with his team, than paying attention to his basic physical needs.

CONCLUSION

It would appear that plaintiff missed a chance to raise some important claims that might have led to a different result. If, instead of relying on negligence, they raised the issue of the youth and lack of awareness of their son. —His inability to realize the potential harm—they might have prevailed. It’s hard to say.

RAINY DAYS' READING

I am waiting out

The rain that will

Fall forhours, for days,

Drowning outdoor ambitions,

Compromising small plans

In exchange for feeding

And watering the world.

For now, I’m safe

And dry, a book

In hand, turning pages,

Marking time’s passage

By ignoring it, losing

Myself in a story

Not my own,

Carried along

On a river of words

That needs no rain

To refill it. The journey

Will take me

Back to the sunlight

When the story is

Done, and the storm

Has weakened and passed.

Copyright (c) 2011 by the author