Norman McDaniels v. State of Alaska, 451 P.3d 403

McDaniels was on probation for first-degree sexual abuse of a minor; the State petitioned to revoke probation for allegedly violating a domestic-violence protective order by contacting the protected person, L.G.
At the revocation hearing the State called only the investigating officer, who testified about what L.G. told him and what the officer saw on L.G.’s phone screen; L.G. did not testify and no phone photos were admitted.
Defense objected pre-hearing to admission of hearsay and invoked the due-process right to confront adverse witnesses; the court agreed to revisit the issue after testimony but did not do so during the hearing.
After the hearing McDaniels moved for reconsideration, arguing the court denied his due-process right by relying on L.G.’s hearsay without a specific finding of good cause; the superior court denied the motion in a short order.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held McDaniels preserved his due-process claim, found the superior court erred by failing to make a finding of good cause before denying confrontation, vacated the revocation, and remanded for further proceedings.
The court adopted the balancing test for assessing "good cause": weigh the probationer’s confrontation interest (including hearsay reliability) against the State’s reasons for not producing the witness, and require a specific articulated finding on good cause.

Issue	McDaniels' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether McDaniels was denied his due-process right to confront an adverse witness when the court relied on L.G.’s hearsay	Court relied on untested hearsay; McDaniels was denied minimal due-process right to confront unless court made a good-cause finding	Rules of evidence and Confrontation Clause do not apply to revocation hearings; hearsay was reliable enough	Held for McDaniels: due-process right applies and was denied because no good-cause finding was made; revocation vacated
Whether McDaniels preserved the due-process/confrontation claim for appeal	Preserved — raised before trial and sought ruling; moved for reconsideration after hearing and received an adverse ruling	Not preserved — trial counsel didn’t renew the objection after testimony	Held for McDaniels: issue preserved (raised before hearing, court agreed to revisit, then denied on reconsideration)
Proper test for "good cause" to deny confrontation in revocation hearings	Implicitly urged protection of confrontation unless evidence demonstrably reliable	Argued evidence had sufficient indicia of reliability such that confrontation was unnecessary	Court adopts balancing test: weigh probationer’s interest (including reliability of hearsay) vs State’s reasons for nonproduction; require explicit findings of good cause

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (establishes minimum due-process protections for parole revocation, including confrontation)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (extends Morrissey protections to probation revocation hearings)
United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2016) (endorses balancing test for denying confrontation at revocation hearings)
United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 1999) (applies balancing test weighing probational interest against government’s good cause)
Curtis v. Chester, 626 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2010) (discusses reliability-based and balancing approaches to hearsay in revocation contexts)
Mahan v. State, 51 P.3d 962 (Alaska App. 2002) (preservation requires obtaining an adverse ruling)
Edwards v. State, 34 P.3d 962 (Alaska App. 2001) (Alaska courts may declare law in absence of statutory directive)
Smithart v. State, 988 P.2d 583 (Alaska 1999) (adopt rule of law based on precedent, reason, and policy)