Antonio Jordan, Petitioner v. State of Alaska, Respondent.

Summary

The court conditionally held that, if Jordan's possession of marijuana in a detached greenhouse was protected by the Alaska Constitution's privacy provision, the jury had to decide whether he was at least negligent regarding the marijuana's weight. Omitting that contested mental-state element was structural error, and excluding Jordan's testimony about his belief regarding the weight was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reversed the affirmance of his conviction and remanded for the superior court to decide whether the constitutional privacy protection applied; if it did, Jordan was entitled to a new trial.