State Supreme Court orders more scrutiny of Valley pot case

PALMER — The state’s highest court is asking its second highest to revisit a decision concerning a Valley marijuana growing case.

In a recent decision, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the state court of appeals in the case of Sven Rofkar, who was convicted in 2006 of growing “a substantial quantity” of weed in a house he rented.

According to the lower court’s ruling, the marijuana grow was in Sutton and consisted of 11 plants and 1.6 pounds of marijuana. It came to light when a probations officer visiting a neighbor reported smelling marijuana.

There are different Alaska laws that apply to weed growing operations. One outlaws manufacturing marijuana, while another outlaws possessing it. A third outlaws maintaining a home with the sole purpose of producing illegal drugs.

Rofkar was convicted of all of those charges in a jury trial.

At sentencing, the judge chose to merge the manufacturing and possession charges into a single charge for the purpose of determining how much time Rofkar should serve. The maintaining a building for an illegal purpose remained separate and had its own sentence imposed.

On appeal, Rofkar cried foul, saying that the sentencing runs afoul of state protections against double jeopardy, a term used to describe punishing a defendant twice for the same crime. It is, after all, the same stash of drugs that led to both charges.

This is where the appellate courts come in.

Standing legal opinion handed down in a previous appellate ruling, Thesson v. State of Alaska, held that starting a fire that killed 14 people could only result in one homicide conviction.

But other appellate cases seem to imply that in situations like drug cases, multiple convictions can be constitutional. Maintaining a drug business can entail multiple sets of decisions and actions rather than just one like in that arson scenario.

The Alaska Supreme Court said the appeals court recognized this in its ruling.

Quoting that ruling, the Supreme Court held that “Alaska’s double jeopardy clause might be violated if a defendant receives separate convictions for possessing drugs and for maintaining a dwelling or a building to keep those same drugs.”

But, to figure out if double jeopardy applies, the court needs to thoroughly review the facts of the case, which is what the high court ordered the appellate court to do in Rofkar’s case.

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.