Anderson v. State

y. CONCLUSION au- Tim Cashman colorable

Because by Mayor appointment

thority to his due scope and and acted within

Lancaster office, authority of his we AF- apparent superior court. the decision

FIRM Justice,

FABE, participating. ANDERSON, Appellant,

Joseph L. Alaska, Appellee.

STATE A-8064.

No. Appeals of Alaska.

April Libbey Libbey, A. E.

Colleen and Daniel Anchorage, Appellant. for Diemer, Attorney Kenneth J. Assistant General, Special Office of Prosecutions and Anchorage, Renkes, Appeals, Gregg D. General, Juneau, Attorney Appellee. COATS, Judge, Chief Before: STEWART, Judges. MANNHEIMER OPINION COATS, Judge. Chief 1, 2000, early morning In the of December Anchorage police a 911 call from received woman; reported the woman that she had physically assaulted. When scene, officer arrived on the the woman told hurt. officer that someone else was nearby apartment, woman officer to led the lying where When a man was on the floor. hap- this man what had officer asked proceedings that Facts pened, the man answered “Joe” —the defendant, Joseph L. Anderson —had hit him early In morning the December pipe. with a Zonyua placed a 911 Robinson call to the Anchorage Department. Police Robinson in- trial, injured

At Anderson’s the man did Joseph formed the Anderson had testify, not out-of-court statement but his just assaulted her. through presented jury was to the the hear- say testimony officer. The trial Anchorage Police Officer Pam Nelson was judge man’s ruled that statement was dispatched to the Arctic Tern Inn to contact admissible as an excited utterance under Robinson. When Officer Nelson contacted 803(2). In Alaska Evidence Rule our first Robinson, bleeding was very she and was case, upheld we decision Anderson’s upset. Robinson Officer told Nelson that evidentiary ruling.1 there was who someone else was hurt and help. needed the officer nearby She led Now, however, question must decide a we apartment, injured where an man —Carroll though of federal constitutional law: Even floor, lying Nelson —was on the covered with injured man’s statement was admissible bedspread. a blanket or an excited utterance under Alaska Evi- 803(2), dence Rule was officer’s According to Officer Nelson’s later testi- hearsay testimony concerning this out-of- mony, Robinson asked Carroll if Nelson he by the court statement barred Confrontation right. all replied was Carroll Nelson that he Clause of the United States Constitution? hurt, having and that he was a hard time breathing. Officer Nelson When removed Washington, In 541 U.S. covering body, from Carroll Nelson’s she (2004), 124 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 177 observed that was not wearing Nelson Supreme the United States Court construed shirt, and that he had several obvious bruises prohibit gov the Confrontation Clause According Nelson, on his torso. to Officer introducing hearsay testimony ernment from appeared Carroll Nelson to be in a lot of describing “testimonial” out-of-court state pain. (unless (a) government proves ments him, point, At this Nelson Officer asked person who the out-of-court made state respond- “What Carroll Nelson (b) ments is witness and unavailable as a pipe. ed that “Joe” hit him with a prior opportunity the defendant person concerning cross-examine this those testify Carroll Nelson did statements). The in Anderson’s case is However, Anderson’s trial. Officer Nelson injured response whether the man’s testify concerning was allowed to this out-ofT question, happened?”, quali officer’s judge court statement. The trial ruled that hearsay fies as “testimonial” Carroll Nelson’s the officer’s Crawford. was admissible as excited utter- here, explained For the reasons we con- 803(2). ance under Alaska Rule Evidence injured clude man’s Later, appealed not “testimonial” purposes the Con- when his con- Anderson Court, frontation viction Clause. Because testimo- to this we affirmed this evi- ny conclusion, concerning dentiary ruling. reaching this out-of-court In this statement Clause, barred we relied on the Confrontation United (as Roberts.2 previous and because concluded in our we decision Ohio decision) Roberts, the statement was admissible as an Court ruled that the hearsay exception excited utterance under Alaska’s evidence for excited utterances was rules, judge “firmly properly exception,” Anderson’s trial al- rooted testify lowed the concerning quali- officer thus injured inherently man’s out-of-court statement. fied as excited utterance car- State, App. 1. See Anderson Opinion Alaska Memoran- 2. 448 U.S. 65 L.Ed.2d 597 Judgment dum (January at 5-8 No. 4823 28, 2004). hearsay, because it was a statement of trustworthiness indicia ried sufficient trial court and the penal interest.4 The of the Unit- satisfy Clause the Confrontation concluded that ed States Constitution.3 Sylvia’s did not vio- admission decision, pe Following our Anderson right constitutional late Crawford’s federal to hear Alaska Court titioned the courts relied on to confrontation. The Ohio petition was his case. While Washington Supreme The v. Roberts. Court States Court pending, the United that, Sylvia’s although statement concluded Washington. In Craw decided Crawford firmly-rooted hearsay not fall under a did Ohio v. ford, Supreme Court overruled the guar- exception, the statement had sufficient interpretation announced a new Roberts and satisfy the Con- antees of trustworthiness holds of the Confrontation Clause. Crawford The frontation Clause.5 United Su- flatly prohibits Clause that the Confrontation granted preme Court certiorari. introducing from “testimoni government decision, circum hearsay, al” no matter much the how In the Crawford surrounding making of the out- stances its decision Ohio v. Court reexamined Roberts, might indicate of-court statement Roberts. Under Ohio v. witness’s trustworthy, the defen statement is unless could be admitted if it prior opportunity “adequate reliability.” to cross- A dant has had indicia of state- had speaker regarding adequate reliability the out-of- examine indicia if it ment statement, government hearsay “firmly excep- court and unless the fell within rooted unavailable speaker “particularized guarantees demonstrates tion” or Crawford, to testify at the defendant’s trial. trustworthiness.”6 But concluded that the Ohio Roberts test Court announced a new Con- Because Crawford First, fundamentally flawed. Court analysis, frontation the Alaska Su- Clause unpredictability out the pointed factors preme ease to remanded Anderson’s courts to determine whether a which used might us our decision so that we reconsider hearsay statement had sufficient indicia of in light of Crawford. reliability satisfy the Confrontation pointed out that Clause.7 The Court factors Washington courts determine that a state- which used to in the Michael D. Crawford was tried contradictory. ment was rehable were often at- assault and State of for “unpardona- tempted had stabbed But the Court found that the murder. Crawford defense. test not its [was] Kenneth Lee and claimed self ble vice Roberts wife, Sylvia, capaci- unpredictability, had seen the stab- but its demonstrated Crawford’s core bing extensively interrogated ty had been to admit testimonial statements that Sylvia plainly soon did the Confrontation Clause meant afterwards. The testify at Crawford’s trial because Craw- exclude.”8 Court concluded that testi- privi- could not be Washington’s ford exercised marital monial evidence admit- lege, testifying spouse unless the who made the out-of- which bars from ted witness spouse’s without the other consent. But court statement was unavailable and had introduce, previously State was able over Crawford’s cross-examined. objections, Sylvia’s tape-recorded did not define what testimonial was. a witness as police, which the State offered But the Court defined someone testimony” Lee and defined “testi- “bear[s] evidence that Crawford had not stabbed who Syl- argued mony” declaration or affirma- “[A] self defense. State solemn admissible, although establishing for the purpose via’s tion made Crawford, 3. 541 U.S. at 124 S.Ct. 1371. 448 U.S. at 100 S.Ct. at 2539. 7. 804(b)(3). 804(b)(3); Evid. A.R.E. Wash. Rule 541 U.S. at S.Ct. at 1358. Roberts, scrutiny out proving altogether.”14 some fact.”9 Court then set Confrontation Clause examples of statements which were some essential Confrontation analysis testimonial: Clause has thus become whether or issue, particular not a evidence out-of-court Where testimonial is at statement was however, the Sixth Amendment demands “testimonial.” required: what the common law unavaila bility prior opportunity and a cross- Applying to Anderson’s case day examination. leave for another Turning case, ques to Anderson’s comprehensive effort out a spell tion is whether Carroll Nelson’s statement to definition else of “testimonial.” Whatever Officer Nelson “Joe” had hit him with a covers, applies the term at a minimum to pipe was testimonial. the Su prior testimony hearing, a preliminary preme “interrogations by Court stated that trial; grand jury, or at a before formal law squarely enforcement officers fall within interrogations. and to These of [the class that are státements testimonial practices kinship modern closest hearsay.]”15 Supreme The Court did not to the abuses at which the Confrontation “interrogation” define but stated that “[w]e directed.[10] Clause was colloquial, any use the term its rather than description of “testimonial” Crawford’s legal technical sense.”16 clearly includes statements statements made determining In colloquial definition of police during a formal interrogation. interrogation, logical it seems for us to turn Supreme But the did not what Court define dictionary. The American Heritage interrogation. constituted The stated Court of Dictionary English Language defines “Sylvia’s statement, knowingly recorded interrogate as “to questioning examine ques- given to structured formally officially.”17 or The Merriam- tioning, any qualifies under defi- conceivable Dictionary provides Webster of Law the def- nition [of testimonial].”11 But the Court question formally systemat- inition of “to ‘interrogation’ stated use term “[w]e 18 definitions, ically.” From these we con- colloquial, in its rather than technical interrogate clude that Officer Nelson did legal, sense.”12 The Court also stated him, Carroll Nelson when she asked testimonial statements were “statements The does not seem

were made under circumstances which would formal, category official, to fall within of objective reasonably lead witness to be- systematic questioning. lieve the statement would be available for use at a later trial.”13 addition, pointed Court applies out that the Confrontation Clause explained The Court further that “[w]here issue, “witnesses the accused.”19 nontestimonial is at it whol- ly design consistent with the to Court defined witness as someone who Framers’ flexibility testimony” “testimony” develop- afford the in their and defined [s]tates “bear[s] ap- ment of law ... as or would an solemn declaration affirmation “[a] such proach exempts purposes establishing from made for of or Id., Webster, Dictionary (quoting Heritage English at 1 N. 9. An 17. American American of (cid:127) Dictionary (1828)). English Language (4th ed.2000) (visited 2005) Language March <http://www.bartleby.com/61/72 00.-ht /I01972 (footnote omitted). 10. Id. at 1374 ml>. Id. at 11. 1365 n. 4. (1996) Dictionary 18. Merriam-Webster Law of (footnote omitted). Id. (visited 23, 2005) <http://dict March ion ary.lp.findl aw.com/scripts/ results.pl?co= dictio nary.lp. topic= & findlaw.com 94/94289c09ca6 73bf97beadcaff 2836254>. Id. at 15. Id. at 1365. 124 S.Ct. at 1364. (footnote omitted). 16. Id. at 1365 n. finding definition that Carroll Nelson’s state-

proving some fact.”20 Court’s utterance, particularly ment was excited imply certain also seems “witness” ease, appears under the facts of this to be formality. case structure with the that Carroll inconsistent conclusion also that testimonial statements were stated “witness,” Supreme was a as the Nelson were made circum- “statements that Court the word in or that defined objective lead an wit- stances which would his “under circum- statements were made reasonably that the statement ness to believe objective stances which would lead an wit- use a later trial.”21 available for would be reasonably believe that the statement ness to wording Although could would use at a later trial.”25 be available for given interpreta- be a number different tions, wording light when we consider this analysis have All we shown this is that “interrogate” “wit- the definitions appear statement does Carroll Nelson’s ness,” appears to be category to fall within the of statements that than the speaking of more formal statements Court defined as the United single excited clearly testimonial While the Crawford. ease. explained what core statements would n testimonial, regarded explain be it did not Judge previously upheld have Hens- full reach of its decision. The Court ley’s that Carroll Nelson’s determination say declined to that all which statements excited utter- statement was admissible an in response police were made to ance.22 is “[a] An excited utterance state- any hearsay be testimonial or that would relating startling ment event or condi- directly implicated statement which a defen- tion made while the declarant under dant would violate the Confrontation Clause. by the event or stress of excitement caused We conclude that the out-of-court statement condition.”23 at this case can be deemed non- utterance, To as an excited be admissible though testimonial even it was made to a have an must officer, police though directly and even while the declarant was under “a made implicated Anderson. temporarily of excitement which condition capacity reflection and We have reviewed numerous decisions still[ed] [for] produce[d] interpreted great utterances free of conscious fa which have Crawford. spontaneity, majority a brication.” The declarant’s of courts which have considered this product being experienced question have ut- emotions concluded that excited declarant, officer, key police is the factor deter terance crime victim to a admissibility response mining questioning, to statement^ made minimal 24] persuaded by not testimonial.26 We are 824, Webster, (Cal.2004); (quoting Rptr.3d 20. 2 Id. at 1354 1 N. An Ameri- P.3d Leavitt v. 99 (1828)). Arave, 663, (9th Cir.2004) Dictionary English Language 371 683 22 can of the F.3d n. (murder police night victim calls before death to 21. report that defendant had broken into her home—court concluded this was ut that excited 803(2). 22. Alaska Evid. R. terance and non-testimonial because victim initi contact, interrogated, ated was not and her mo Id. calling only "help tive in to obtain in a home”); frightening into v. intrusion her Stancil State, (Alaska 832 P.2d 591 Dezarn States, (D.C.App.2005) United A.2d 815 866 App.1992) (quoting Commentary to Alaska Evi (holding that excited to utterances made (citations 803(l)-(2), paragraph) dence Rule omitted). third only given are officers testimonial when in re "questioning sponse to in a structured environ Webb, ment”); United States v. 2004 WL at (Officer (D.C.Super.2004) dis *4 People Cage, Cal.Rptr.3d patched to See 15 848 scene of assault asks "What victim (holding (Cal.App.2004) that Victim that states defendant hospital punched made at the to her face. held that in the Victim’s statement defendant State, non-testimonial); cut him was not testimonial because the Fowler v. N.E.2d inter (held (Ind.App.2004) view was "unstructured" and "informal and un 961-66 statements recorded") petition granted police question- review Cal. to to informal for position statement which Carroll determining these cases that the because in gave Nelson was not testi- testimonial, Nelson to Officer ap- the statements are monial that admission of the statement pellate court stated that the state- does not violate the Confrontation Clause. accusatory testimony ments “bore prove which [the defendant] offered arguably three cases arriv have found truth of the matter specifically, asserted ing contrary at a conclusion. Two of these readily distinguishable sexually cases from E.H. assaulted her.”29 But E.H.,27 In re case Anderson’s case. is a distinguishable. case is victims’ state- victims, ages alleged where the five and two ments were excited utterances and the offense, reported at the time their of the were not made to authorities. grandmother thirteen-year-old their ba Powers,30 the Court held bysitter sexually assaulted over a them tape-recorded that a reporting 911 call year trial court before. The allowed these of a restraining violation domestic violence per statements under an Illinois rule which order was testimonial statement. The mitted of a thir the statements child under Court concluded that purpose the 911 years teen prosecu old to be admitted report call was to a violation of the restrain- physical tion sexual assault if the child ing apprehend order allow the was unavailable and there was “corroborative the defendant was not made “under the subject evidence of the act which is the stress of immediate threat harm nor appellate statement.”28 court held present.” still alleged [the defendant] children’s statements were testimonial helpful The case is in response victim’s statements were made Crawford. involved, ing shortly only a crime the scene of after crime else that defendant "was the one” Barnes, testimonial); occurred are not State v. was not in to a "structured (Me.2004) (Defendant eye 854 A.2d asked with towards trial” but was de area, charged signed of his mother. murder In an earli to secure the also testimoni incident, police police er responses question the mother went to al. further station Victim's to testimonial); stating ing tears Griggs, that defendant tried to kill her. were United States v. 2676474, (S.D.N.Y.2004) (Police Statements admitted as excited Moth utterance. 2004 WL at *5 dispatched, er’s say, statements non-testimonial because she had to officer scene hears declarant gone police got gun!” on to the her own while He’s a "Gun! Gun! and observed de- alleged police only gesture stress of the assault and asked clarant towards defendant. Statement nontestimonial); Anderson, questions why upset); to she determine was Peo held State v. 2005 1882661, (Mich. ple Bryant, (holding v. WL (Tenn.Crim.App.2005) 2004 at WL *1 171441 that (murder App.2004) police victim’s "Rick statement that excited utterances made to officers re police sponding reported shot me” was not testimonial because to not 313977, crime are "testimoni Forrest, Maclin, only happened?”); al”); asked State v. "What v. State 2005 WL at *17 272, 22, (2004) (domestic N.C.App. (Tenn.Crim.App.2005) 164 596 S.E.2d 29 violence vic (Kidnaping police shortly responding police victim's to tim’s statements made to offi being testimonial); after rescued were admissible excited cer excited not as were utterances and State, 467167, -S.W.3d-, Key police utterances and testimonial. asked not 2005 WL crime); questions gave (Tex.App.2005) no (holding and victim account at *5 that excited utter 709, People Mackey, by responding Misc.3d 5 785 N.Y.S.2d ance made victim to officer to 870, Crim.Ct.2004) (assault testimonial); (N.Y.City 874 vic scene of assault was not State v. 781, 406, police Orndorff, Wash.App. tim’s statements to where 122 non-testimonial 95 P.3d 408 (2004) (where immediately police she initiated contact officers witness told she saw man downstairs, leave, punched gun after defendant her—her statements with a saw men two was 911, protection panic-stricken were made to immediate rather tried seek to dial statement non-testimonial). prosecution, than initiate a and there was no held to be Moscat, police questioning); People formal 3 739, 875, 564, 443, (N.Y.City Ill.App.3d Misc.3d 777 N.Y.S.2d 880 27. 355 291 823 Ill.Dec. Crim.Ct.2004) (911 (2005). by call made domestic vio N.E.2d 1029 emergency help lence victim to obtain non- is 567, 445, get help, testimonial. Call made to initiate Id. at 291 Ill.Dec. at 823 N.E.2d at Watson, prosecution); People v. 2004 WL (Armed (N.Y.Sup.2004) robbery at **14 police immediately victim makes statements to Id. at 291 Ill.Dec. at 823 N.E.2d at following spontaneous Victim’s first crime. police just statement to “that man robbed Wash.App. me” was not Second testimonial. 99 P.3d question police anyone if there was conceded, his ma- by operator. the 911 As Justice Scalia himself questions several jority opinion in does offer a distinguishable because the state- case is Crawford precise Instead to several definition “testimonial”.2 were made ments definition, giving opin- by finding that the us a questions and the court’s Crawford by merely example. ion One of the call to initiate a criminal describes purpose of the was examples of prosecution. testimonial pro- the case which comes Lopez v. State31 is interrogation: through police cured directly supporting the nearest else the term [“testimonial”] Whatever kid- argument. police responded covers, applies prior it at a minimum to Ruiz. The officer naping report and contacted testimony preliminary hearing at a [or] report- happened, and Ruiz Ruiz what asked jury[; testimony] grand a and to at before gunpoint Lopez had abducted him at ed that trial; police interroga- and to former twenty-five Lopez, who was pointed tions. yards away. The Court concluded find for the trial court to was reasonable 541 U.S. S.Ct. at 1374. shortly kidnaping had occurred before phrase Interpreting “police interroga- police that Ruiz’s statement arrived and sense, any tion” its broadest answer to was an excited utterance. But posed might officer be Ruiz had to know concluded po- procured through viewed a statement “a formal to the his statement interrogation. lice I conclude But that such report that would used of the incident be interpretation “interrogation” a broad held the defendant.”32 misreading would be a of Crawford. testi- Ruiz’s statement It is not clear how Florida Court monial. First, just adopt refused present case. approach the facts would “testimonial”, definition of likewise apparently The Florida Court’s decision adopt “interroga- refused to a definition of that we should stands alone. We conclude True, tion”. Justice stated that he Scalia majority emerging view on the follow the using “interrogation” “colloquial” its admissibility responses to on- of excited brief colloquial meanings sense. But the of words police officers. the-scene contrast, normally ascertainable. Jus- appears adjective tice Scalia have used accordingly uphold admission of “colloquial” he believed that it em- because statement. Carroll Nelson’s out-of-court uncertainty a degree ambiguity. braced of or AF- judgment superior court is of the is, giving precise That wished to he avoid a FIRMED. “interrogation”: definition of “interrogation” We use the term in its MANNHEIMER, Judge, concurring. colloquial any rather than technical [sense] legal a ... In We are asked to decide whether crime sense. Rhode Island v. Cf. nis, [100 victim’s one-sentence 446 U.S. S.Ct. (1980). hap- ... question, “What 64 L.Ed.2d vari 297] officer’s on-the-scene Just as pened?”, exist, should “testimonial” for ous definitions of one be deemed “testimonial” analy- purposes imagine of the can various Confrontation Clause definitions “interro by gation,” among sis announced and we the United need select Washington.1 agree I Court in them in this case. re [Crawford’s wife’s] Crawford statement, my colleagues knowingly given that this kind of out-of- corded in re sponse police questioning, court statement is not testimonial. to structured Crawford, (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004). 31. 888 So.2d 124 S.Ct. at & n. 10. 1. 541 U.S. 158 L.Ed.2d 177 defendants, though

qualifies under conceivable definition criminal even the makers “interrogation”]. brought of these statements were never [of might court so that the defendants cross- 53,124 Crawford, at 1365 n. 541 U.S. S.Ct. 42-55, examine them. 541 U.S. 124 S.Ct. at 1359-1367. Nevertheless, points in Judge as Coats out majority opinion, vaguely explication even this con- In the course of his his Clause, provide insight into Confrontation Justice ex- toured definition does Scalia why plained majority court its use conclud- what the intended “interrogation”. police interrogations analogous As used in ev- ed that are of the term eryday “interrogate” parte by royal a more lim- speech, has the ex examinations conducted “inquire” inquest power: or meaning ited than “ask” or even officials under their formal, “question”. “interrogation” An is a interrogations striking Police bear re- systematic questioning that is conducted to by justices semblance to examinations investigation inquiry. an or advance official peace England. The statements are testimony, not sworn the absence of but interrogated. Suspects Prisoners are are dispositive. And, oath was not Cobham’s normally [Lord] interrogated. although we Privy examination being [before Council] speak of witnesses “examined” at a unsworn, yet ... Raleigh’s [Sir Walter] inquest, might reasonably trial or at an one accusatory trial which [at Cobham’s out-of- process interrogation. an describe this long court statement was introduced] has you happen on the scene of a But when thought paradigmatic confrontation you bystander, traffic ask a accident and violation.... you large happened?”, or when see a “What gathered you crowd front of a store and interrogators That are [the] offi- ask, on?”, going are not “What’s these “inter- magistrates cers rather than does not

rogations”. change picture either. Justices peace conducting examinations under the that “in- Given admonishment Crawford’s magistrates Marian statutes were not terrogation” should be understood its col- today, we understand that office but had sense, loquial appears that what occurred essentially investigative prosecuto- arriving Anderson’s case —a officer England rial function.... did not have a asking, reported at the scene of a crime and professional police until force the 19th cen- happened here?” —does not constitute tury, surprising ... so it is that other interrogation. government performed officers the investi- This conclusion is bolstered the fact gative primarily functions now associated Court’s decision Craw- police. gov- with the The involvement of lengthy exploration rests on ford production ernment officers in the of testi- origins of the Confrontation Clause. risk, presents monial evidence the same As described in the Confronta- justices whether the officers repeated tion Clause was direct peace. of the power inquest power abuses of the —the 52-53, S.Ct. at statement, appear give a people force and (citations (emphasis original) in the otherwise, government under oath or to a omitted). legislative body investigating official or to a potential According Crawford, passage my from reinforces crime. the This Crawford (Indeed, that, inquest conclusion when the Court abuse was the itself. interrogation”, grand jury inquest phrase “police and the coroner’s used the law.) brief, referring kind of inquest are still fixtures of American Court was not to the Rather, inquisitorial questioning that occurred in the abuse was that these on-the-scene Rather, proceedings employed to accusa- were obtain Anderson’s case. introduced, formal,

tory referring statements that later to the kind of were is, systematic hearsay, questioning at criminal trials. That that was characteris- these practices accusatory English inquisitorial used tic of the were decision, and the rationale of the Confrontation the enactment prompted Crawford apply does not thus the decision Clause. Crawford facts. these is consistent with interpretation This reasons, agree my col- For these I and his Michael Crawford facts of Crawford. leagues that the Confrontation Clause did to Richard Lee at wife, paid a visit Sylvia, visit, introducing the State from During this Michael bar apartment. Lee’s testimony in this case an- (purported- the victim and killed Lee Crawford stabbed sexually stating, “Joe attempted swered the officer’s ly Lee had because Crawford).3 night, pipe.” hit Later that me with Sylvia assault Crawford for the arrested Michael However, appears Sylvia homicide. having a role suspected of also to the United According crime.

in this opinion, both Mi- Supreme Court’s given warn- Sylvia were Miranda

chael and interrogated each

ings, “police detectives According to the facts recit- of them twice”.4 RODGERS, Appellant, D. Kemone opin- ined taped, ion, were all four of these interviews of interviews occurred Alaska, set Appellee. second STATE police [conducted] after [the] hours “[s]everal A-8841. No. the first [interviews]”.5 Appeals of Alaska. words, Sylvia Crawford was sub- In other systematic police jected prolonged and April And, regarding homicide. Privy interroga- Council

was true when investigation of in its Wal-

ted Lord Cobham treason, person Raleigh’s potential

ter interrogated Sylvia Crawford —knew

being — suspected complicity she herself investigation.

in the crime under facts, why can one see

Given these majority concluded that the Sylvia analo-

interrogation of Crawford was

gous parte interrogations by type of ex place English

royal that took officials sixteenth, seventeenth, eigh-

law in the and, thus, why the

teenth Con- centuries — government frontation Clause barred Sylvia’s introducing evidence of an-

from hearsay testimony of a through the

swers

police officer. contrast, the evidence at single ease is a sentence uttered the victim of a crime question, officer’s on-the-scene facts do not fall within These 36-38, Washington, Washington, v. 541 U.S. at 4. Crawford

3.Crawford 1356-57; S.Ct. at 1357. 147 Wash.2d S.Ct. State 54 P.3d 54 P.3d at 658. 5. State

Case Details

Case Name: Anderson v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Alaska

Date Published: Apr 15, 2005

Citation: 111 P.3d 350

Docket Number: A-8064

Court Abbreviation: Alaska Ct. App.