from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Trial Court
No. 3AN-12-2437 CR Anchorage, Michael R. Spaan, Judge.
T. Fitzgerald, Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C., Anchorage, for the
Appellant. James Fayette, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions &
Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General,
Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock,
Superior Court Judge. [*]
Enterprises, a business corporation, ran the Rumrunners Old
Towne Bar and Grill in downtown Anchorage. The corporation
was convicted of fourth-degree assault based on the conduct
of two of its security personnel. The State's case
against the corporation was based on the following evidence
(presented here in the light most favorable to the State):
unruly patron named Johnny Brown assaulted one of the
Rumrunners security guards, Murville Lampkin. Various members
of the security staff subdued Brown and handcuffed him. At
this point, Lampkin and his supervisor, George Damassiotis
(the head of security for Rumrunners) decided to take Brown
to the security office in the basement of the bar.
boarded the elevator for the trip down to the security
office, Damassiotis said to Lampkin either "Go for it,
" or "There are no cameras in here; he is all
yours." Lampkin then "sucker-punched" Brown -
punching him in the face without warning. This punch
fractured the orbital bone surrounding Brown's left eye;
repair of this injury required a surgical implant.
Damassiotis, and AB&M Enterprises were all charged with
this assault - Lampkin because he was alleged to have
personally committed the assault, Damassiotis because he was
alleged to have encouraged Lampkin to commit the assault, and
AB&M Enterprises under the theory that the corporation
was responsible for Damassiotis's and Lampkin's
conduct under AS 11.16.130.
law defining when a corporation can be convicted of a
AS 11.16.130(a)(1), a corporation can be convicted of a
criminal offense if the offense was committed through the
conduct of an agent of the corporation, and either (A) the
conduct at issue was within the scope of the agent's
employment and was done in behalf of the corporation; or (B)
the conduct was solicited, subsequently ratified, or
subsequently adopted by the corporation.
(b) of this statute declares that, for these purposes,
"agent" means a director or officer of the
corporation, or any employee of the corporation, or any other
person authorized to act in behalf of the corporation.
potential ways in which this statute applied to this
AS 11.16.130, the jury in this case could theoretically find
AB&M guilty of the assault on Brown ...