Alaska R. Evid. 302 commentary

Whenever a state court looks to federal law to find the rule

of decision with respect to a claim or defense, federal law will

govern with respect to the effect of a presumption. Cf., Dice v.

Akron, C. & Y. R.Co., 342 U.S. 359, 96 L.Ed. 398 (1952). See

also the Reporter’s Comment accompany Rule 501. As Alaska

Rule 301 prescribing the effect of presumptions is identical to

the federal evidence rule, courts will seldom have to determine

which law should be followed. The only potential conflict is in

the case of a claim or defense for which the United States

Congress has provided by statute for the shifting of the burden

of persuasion or where the federal judiciary has interpreted the

Constitution or a federal statute to require shifting the burden

of persuasion and the Alaska rule is contra, or vice versa. Rule

302 will apply to such situations. Federal criminal cases will

be litigated in federal courts, so no state rule is needed to deal

with presumptions in such cases. But see Testa v. Katt, 330

U.S. 386, 91 L.Ed. 967 (1947).