Sven Rofkar, Petitioner v. State of Alaska, Respondent

Summary

The court held that Rofkar preserved his double-jeopardy challenge even though he did not argue in his opening brief that controlling authority should be overruled or distinguished. It vacated the court of appeals' decision because that court had not adequately applied the governing case-specific double-jeopardy test, and remanded for consideration of whether the convictions involved the same offense. The court did not decide whether Rofkar's convictions ultimately violated double jeopardy.