In Benson v. State, 160 P.3d 161 (Alaska App. 2007) the Court determined that the superior court had erred in deciding that Benson was not indigent without first conducting a full inquiry under Alaska Criminal Rule 39.1(e), which requires the court either to place the defendant under oath and inquire into his financial status or procure a signed, sworn financial statement. The Court remanded the case for the superior court to make a determination whether Benson was indigent at the time of his trial. In the event that the superior court found that Benson was indigent, the Court directed the court to vacate Benson's convictions and order a new trial. On the other hand, in the event that the superior court found that Benson was not indigent and that he voluntarily chose to not hire an attorney and to represent himself, the Court indicated that he would then review the superior court's decision on that issue and would consider Benson's other arguments on appeal.