State v. Mullin
In State v. Mullin, 778 P.2d 233 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989), the court held an employee of a private company that contracted with the state to provide counseling services to inmates at the Fairbanks Correctional Center was not a public servant within the meaning of Alaska's bribery statute.
Alaska Stat. 11.56.120(a) provided that a public servant committed the crime of bribery if he or she solicited, accepted or agreed to accept a benefit for engaging in an authorized or required official act. Alaska Stat. 11.81.900(b)(48) provided:
"Public servant" means each of the following, whether compensated or not, but does not include jurors or witnesses:
(A) an officer or employee of the state, a municipality or other political subdivision of the state, or a governmental instrumentality of the state, including legislators, members of the judiciary, and peace officers;
(B) a person who participates as an advisor, consultant, or assistant at the request of, the direction of or under contract with the state, a municipality or other political subdivision of the state, or another governmental instrumentality;
(C) a person who serves as a member of the board or commission created by statute or by legislative, judicial, or administrative action by the state, a municipality or other political subdivision of the state, or a governmental instrumentality;
(D) a person nominated, elected, appointed, employed, or designated to act in a capacity defined in (A) through (C) of this paragraph, but who does not occupy the position. (Mullin, 778 P.2d at 234.)
The court concluded the statute was ambiguous in that it did not state whether an employee of a private organization contracting with the state to provide services was a public servant. Id. at 236.