Parish v. State

Keever, Fairbanks, Atty., F. Asst. Dist. appellee. PARISH, Appellant, Roland John BONEY, DIMOND, J., Before C. Appellee. Alaska,

STATE RABINOWITZ, CONNOR, ERWIN, No. 1180. JJ.

Supreme Court of Alaska. OPINION Dec. CONNOR, Justice. convicted,

Appellant after a trial was in the district of the offense without the owner’s taking a motor vehicle contrary consent 28.35.010. On AS peal erred he contends that trial court prosecution to cross-ex- permitting concerning him offenses amine convicted, and in fail- he had been about ing to instruct or caution for which crimi- could be considered. nal convictions prosecution’s At trial case consisted Nearing, of testimony Sgt. police department, who Fairbanks found engine of appellant attempting to start Hodges. belonging Jay vehicle Near- to him appellant testified that admitted Hodges had testi- that he taken car. given appellant per- fied that he had not any time. vehicle at mission use the in his Appellant the witness took stand that he had He testified own defense. intoxicated, had been lent car persons, and to him three unidentified knowledge had that the automo- that he it. one when he drove bile was stolen prosecutor at- cross-examination the On tempted go into the accused; objection convictions of the counsel, and a col- appellant’s was loquy between court and counsel occurred per- then was prosecutor thereafter. proceed questioning appel- mitted to lant, had been con- who admitted larceny driving an auto- victed consent mobile without the owner’s again in the latter offense and convicted of once in once twice Fairbanks, Madson, appel- again Dick in 1966. L.

lant. recognizes both the Appellant that under Gen., Edwards, Atty. court and Civil Juneau, Kent decisions of this

G. permissible Atty., Stephen Cooper, 43(g) (11) (b) and Thomas Rule Dist. 1006 evidence, court, admitting in about the testimony

elicit the impeaching merely following the deci- the for State, opinions 39 sions this credibility. court. his Scott v. State, objection by appellant’s P.2d counsel v. 440 1968); Gafford (Alaska State, ; gen- 1968) Sidney 408 the introduction of the evidence was a (Alaska v. 405 grounds Anderson v. eral The initial the (Alaska 1965); one. P.2d 858 1963).1 objection quite possible He State, are not (Alaska 384 P.2d 669 clear. impres- asks, however, judge that the trial was under the adopt that the view ex we that the form of dissenting opinion objection in sion was to the pressed in the Scott question. point the At a later defense supra, a new v. and that we order at objected counsel “to the introduction trial. all,” apprise but did not otherwise the court ground objection. the the Neither Criminal Because Court 2 court, colloquy followed the with the instructing jury the prohibited Rule 1(c) any did objection, nor at later time nature of the of other than to define the cau- pellant’s ask that the counsel regulation charged or fense and the statute evidence, al- tioned the use about involved, argues that there is a appellant though argument she did stress final jury used the substantial that the likelihood only as that it could be considered as direct evidence of appellant.4 upon credibility bearing ap reflecting upon guilt merely not argued that pellant’s credibility. per- not are In these circumstances we court should relaxed District Court by committed suaded that error was permitted by Rule Criminal 1(c), Rule trial court. Procedure,3 53 of the Rules of Criminal pointed by the out As that and should have instructed rules been opinion, there has criticism previous convictions should the evidence of by proof of permitting broad guilt. convictions.5 But never not be used as evidence 43(g) (11) (b) provides: in criminal district court 1. Rule tions Civil Party. by “Impeachment Adverse cases. may impeached by party witness designed to facilitate 3. “These rules are by whom he was called may They justice. and advance business tradictory evidence, or dispensed the court or with be relaxed general bad, reputation for truth is where it shall be manifest moral is such as or that his character to them a strict adherence unworthy He render him of belief. injustice.” will work particu- impeached by not be Further, time of except we note that wrongful acts, lar testimony prior convictions, wit- shown the examination jury that judgment stated before the ness the record of impeach was to of the evidence been convicted of a crime.” credibility appellant. We and test “(c) case, pass upon ques Trial. of trial shall be The date do magistrate excluding, at such time fixed the trial court’s its tion of discretion, as will the defendant a reason- of remote convictions afford reparation opportunity impeach witness. able which are offered to U.S.App. representation The trial counsel. Luck v. United 121 (1965) ; in crim- United shall be conducted as trials D.C. 348 763 superior Palumbo, ex- inal eases 401 F.2d 273 cept 1968) Hawthorne, ; instruct court shall not and State v. N.J.Super. (1966). na- than to define the 90 218 A.2d 430 charged ture of the offense Credibility Ladd, 5. M. Tests — Current regulation statute which the Trends, 166, 184-191 89 U.Pa.L.Rev. complaint is based.” (1940) ; Cohen, Impeachment J. 5, 1970, (c) Conviction, On November sections Defendant-Witness Prior (j) McCormick, (1970) ; of District Court Rule 1 were amend- C. Crim.L.Bull. provide giving Evidence, (1954). ed to § of instruc- Texas, knowledge to our has it held U.S. S.Ct. 17 L. application of such rules is a denial of due Ed.2d 606 That case dealt with a process of state law. recidivist statute under which the previous criminal convictions of the de Luck Such cases as put together fendant were in evidence primary evidence of guilt charge. of the States, U.S.App.D.C. v. Gordon United 127 majority speaking through of the 383 F.2d 936 United States (1967), Harlan, J., held that such a did procedure Palumbo, (2d 1968), v. Cir. process might not violate due of law. It dissent, the leave relied in the matter procedure, two-stage be fairer have a of within the sound discretion primary guilt under which would first be Furthermore, in court.6 court Gordon separate proceeding Then in a established. States, supra, through speaking v. United convictions could be Burger, Judge held Justice) Chief (now However, Supreme Court held shown. that an of discretion cannot be abuse procedures pe that the selection of claimed one who failed to invoke culiarly province of the states within the by presenting discretion governed by of and is not that standard past withholding sufficient reasons guaranteed fairness which is fundamental in the jury, convictions from the face process a due clause. In statute which makes the convictions admis- Warren stated that opinion Chief Justice precisely the before sible. This fits case proce recidivist in his view the us, general objection was a of employed due were- violation dures reception counsel of process, say but he was careful evidence. using evi legitimate purpose state has question within the When the is viewed previous criminal convictions dence of discretion, context trial court abuse of an it is well set impeachment purposes. Thus of that not be of discretion would constitu- impeachment allowing that the rule tled merely tional It be an dimension. is a matter question, evidentiary and the error commit- rise a constitutional give does not which ted, ordinary any, if would be claim.7 criminal trial error. the use If expression of The latest United violative bar were held in the case at general sub- Supreme process, States Court broad notion due some ject of the use content then what question would Spencer v. cases is existing evidence in criminal rule. meaning would be left different, course, (Alas- Fairbanks, Quite con City cases 471 P.2d 386 v. cerning 1970), interpret acts of other criminal the Alaska we could ka expansively do not amount defendant which than the more Constitution to criminal convictions. Such a clause. But 14th Amendment due Lovely, v. States United matter be- we are not convinced (4th 1948), magnitude. in the Cir. relied on dissent us is of constitutional fore opinion in the The issues case at bar. Pre recent is of interest reception type Proposed liminary at stake Evi Rules of Draft are, dence for United States authorities, distinguish 6-09, Magistrates, of the traditional Rule Courts presented by per (March 1969), seq. able from those an im et retains mitting pre impeachment by relatively peachment scope wide rule of rejects discretionary vious convictions. We do not think that subject rule of Luck should confused with one United (1965), which is before us in ease. Gordon v. United 348 F.2d 763 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 383 F.2d Under our decisions in Roberts v. Palum (Alaska 1969), bo, 458 P.2d 340 and Baker 401 F.2d 270 choose not This we employed in standardless void. possible rules could Many do. obtains now one which place of the by this impeachment example,

Alaska. For Affirmed. falsi to crimen limited could be method BONEY, (dissenting). Chief Justice problems); definitional attendant (with by the accept the result reached I cannot only if the might be allowed agree with opinion; nor can I majority in evi- puts good character accused which, reached. that result was manner might be ex- dence; previous convictions the one similar to tried crimes are Parish was before cluded if the Roland John tried; being misde- the defendant district court misde- driving made between charge distinctions could be a motor vehicle meanor them, meanors, consent, and fel- types or certain more com- without owner’s ; by showing pre- trial, impeachment or all Parish onies At monly “joyriding”. called simply be abolished. vious convictions could The in his own defense. took the stand ex- necessary objec- to consider the allowed, It would be over the prosecution was counsel,1 tent to distinctions should be drawn which to cross-examine of defense tions impeachment of criminal defend- between record. concerning his criminal Parish ants An alternative and mere witnesses. Parish had one inquiry revealed that This impeachment by pri- of to leave the matter pre- and six larceny of conviction trial judge. joyriding, Still of convictions vious convictions Al- charged. which he was crime with approach of remote- another is to a test use prior though of convictions the evidence ness, by convic- allowing impeachment not pur- sole ostensibly introduced occurring than some definite tions earlier credibility as a pose impeaching of Parish’s point in time. witness,2 court in- did the trial at no time very Yet these matters which are accordingly. Similarly, the struct the making before should be studied with care that to inform the court failed could change existing prior in the No doubt criminal record rule. evidence of guilt. properly be used to establish improved careful can be after rule study simply But to over- and reflection. im- governing the rules in Alaska unprec- throw our own at this time on evidence peachment of witnesses broad,3 exceedingly process grounds leave a are edented due convictions transcript reading appeal 1. A of the trial makes that on contended anything objections repeated it clear that been would have admissible attorney impeachment more Ac- Parish’s were to do evidence. meant other prosecution’s inquiry cordingly, lim- than attack the form of the here must be questions. Although grounds of the to a discussion ited objections might precise- have been more issue. articulately ly stated, 43(g) (11) provides [b] R.Civ.P. 3.Alaska objections sufficiently was nonetheless part: clear. impeached may not be witness] [A wrongful acts, except relevant and for a number of it be shown admissible that purposes. Wigmore Wigmore, record II or the of the witness examination judgment ed. of a that §§ unnecessary However to consider victed of crime. pertinent acceptable 43(h) (7) provides the evidence here was R.Civ.P. any purpose impeachment. part: other than perusal transcript fact as to the A of the trial makes A witness must answer crime. clear the fact the evidence was ad- his Mag.R. testimony. impeach mitted to At Also relevant in this context Parish’s part: prosecution 1(c), provides no time did the use which seek to Crim.P. pursue any conducted as shall be superior point. Furthermore, in criminal cases the state has not trials expected thus it is to be that their that Parish committed the crime will, plication occasion, injustice. foster with which he was that this of those occa- believe is one are, gathered remarkable there specifically, my it is sions. More view case, together many in this one so court, by applying the trial im- widespread factors have elicited peachment rules to allow unrestricted use outspoken permit criticism the rule convictions, effectively deprived ting use im guar- fair impartial Parish of the peach testimony of a in a defendant to him States and anteed the United Initially, noted trial.5 it must be Alaska The evidence Constitutions.4 especial background, permissible only convictions here was lit ly joyriding, his had six convictions credibility. of Parish’s Yet issue credibility tle relevance to as a witness. might apparent easily that Parish’s process separates An cognitive intricate as, regarded record sub- his criminal con from the Indeed, guilt. the cir- stantive evidence of lied on clusion defendant has that a high- of the trial below make it cumstances necessary element witness stand.6 ly could have consid- unlikely that but anything direct finding ered the evidence the individ is the court, except subject, discussing shall not Por authorities jury ; (1954) to McCormick, than define instruct Evidence § see 43 charged Impeachment and Cohen, nature of the offense Defendant- J. of a regulation Conviction, which the the statute complaint Prior 6 Crim.L. Witness (1970) ; is based. Pro- Procedural Bull. 26 Defendant —A tection of Criminal amend VI states: 4. U.S.Const. Against Privilege Re-evaluation prosecutions, accused In all Exclud- Self Incrimination the Rule speedy enjoy right to a shall Propensity to Evidence of Commit * impartial trial, public *. an Crime, 426, 440-443 Harv.L.Rev. part: provides in amend XIV U.S.Const. (1964) ; Notes, Balancing Other Crimes * * * deprive any No shall State Balancing and Evidence at Trial: Of property, life, liberty, person with- (1961) ; Matters, Yale Other L.J. 763 * * *. due of law out Credibility Ladd, and Trends, Tests —Current Const, 11, provides in I § Alaska art. 89 U.Penn.L.Rev. part: (1940). Wigmore, I' See also prosecutions, the ac- In all criminal (3d ed. §§ 193-194 right speedy to cused shall have public impartial trial, Holmes, writing in Gertz 6.Justice ** of twelve *. Co., Fitchberg R. R. Mass. virtually unanimous Commentators stated: proved their criticism unrestricted use of has [W]hen is that a witness impeach only crime, to a defendant who been convicted of a ground disbelieving defense. The takes stand his own him which such pernicious general crimes effect of affords is the readiness applied when to an individual accused of to do evil which the supposed conviction pointed gen- a crime has been out Dean to show. from disposition Griswold: eral alone is He [the can take stand defendant] asked to infer a readiness lie in the deny participation particular case, his has he thence that this, now If he his does lied in tendency fact. evidence has prove conviction can be shown to im- often mis- that he was peach testimony, taken, only his perjured which case he but that he has very likely is convicted. to be Or himself and it reaches conclusion stand, resting solely general can refuse to through proposition take the privilege, constitutional bad he is of character and un- very (Cited worthy case he is also to be convict- of credit. in Scott v. ed. (Alaska 1968)). Griswold, View, Long N. E. A.B.A.J. reflect, slightly to be at most relevant to some previous convictions ual’s margin- credibility. credibility. issue of his When the on his way, crimes as al worth Here, prior convic- Parish’s seven six of against their ex- ment evidence balanced Crimes for misdeameanors. tions were effect, injustice in tremely prejudicial leg- category by the have been deemed present case becomes manifest. serious, in the ele- less either islature involve or introduced they of misconduct which ment always defendant society, against than will create effect on detrimental in their here, prejudice; danger but Accordingly, cases in most felonies. right especially receive a to have fair tends of misdemeanor conviction jeopardized fact that his six on the of the convict- bearing honesty less of a misdemeanor convictions were conviction ed individual does a type of offense the one which was felony. charged principal danger him. The instant particularly true in the This from stemming case, where the six misdemeanor it has joyrid- were for the crime slight bearing permissible on the issue of ing. While credibility, but that far too much may of- larceny forgery, embezzlement or bearing impermissible issue of lie, propensity difficult reveal a it is ten guilt.8 obvious that will credibility. joyriding reflects on to see how quite naturally tempted to consider a de- Carr,7 In United States fendant’s conviction of a crime as Appeals Circuit Court guilt substantive instead of as Columbia commented proof of untruthfulness.9 joyriding relevance temptation This virtually becomes irre- truthfulness: one, sistable in like present cases may is that ‘joyriding’ conduct While prior the defendant’s are for elements lightly, tolerated it has be crimes to is similar the he one ‘impul- bringing category it within the being tried. As Professor McCormick and deemed sive’ crimes should not be out, points in such cases is routine- the kind larcenous act that ly credibility and considered to reflect on danger jury is obvious that the [T]he permissible constitutes hence despite give instructions will more heed ment. past to the conviction that as evidence Thus, gap an a noticeable remains between the accused is the kind of man who affinity joyriding propensity to charge, and a would commit the or crime on appears ought away tell lies. Parish’s criminal record he put even that to with- danger presented 7. 9.A twofold is when a (1969). jury is allowed to hear evidence of a First, defendant’s the convictions. Wigmore states, treatise, in evi- that jury may simply that ac- conclude prior crimes dence of is punish- is an evil man cused who deserves objectionable, has no not because it ment whether or not he committed probative value, appreciable but because charged. Second, jury offense in- too much. The natural it has if reason that the accused has committed tendency tribunal— evitable past, he is more to judge give ex- or to —is have committed the which he crime of weight to the vicious record cessive has been accused. exhibited, crime thus either allow to categories prejudice These two strongly present to bear too it on suggested McCormick, Evidence § charge, proof to take of it as (1954). Cohen, supra at 93 See also n. irrespective justifying a condemnation 32; 5 at Other Evi- Crimes present Wig- guilt charge. of the Trial, supra dence at n. 5 at 763-65. more, ed. § at 646 guilt, victions allowed the to base its present verdict with too much concern out upon rather than bearing Parish’s criminal record legitimate its they will actually that he had committed credibility.10 Thus, the effect of the offense is, possibility then, a There here was below, with when confronted innocence, and to presumption erode the record, concluded presumption to an irrebuttable convert it simply con- joyrider and awas chronic guilt. basis. him on that victed deserves additional factor mention. One is way at in this A arrived probability verdict this case principles of fundamental abhorrent actually used the essential system justice. our One in improper incalculably an manner is legal tradi- the American characteristics of was in creased the fact there matters is the in criminal tion notion given limiting struction a reasonable prove beyond the state purposes must for which the evidence could circumstantial direct through question open dispute used.12 The is doubt — commit- the defendant has judge effectively evidence —that con whether a can which he instructing ted the acts with jury prejudice by trol that evi society charged.11 An individual record dence of a guilty of proven presumed innocent until of deter considered and the specific question; mining veracity offense testi of a defendant’s generally character Arguments mere bad mony. evidence are abun a certain propensity or of a to commit limiting instructions cannot dant that such In guilt. as proof crime will not suffice possibly jury’s tendency regard control case, present the evidence guilt.13 How McCormick, during § was remark counsel; colloquy also v. United Gordon was extended U.S.App.D.C. 343, jury. counsel, not to directed it was held: construe unthinkable to would be special prob- brief, and even more difficult casual reference inarticulate and Similarly, proper lem arises when instruction. substantially for the same or see how fact that difficult summation, argued, conduct for which the accused defense counsel multiple proper only trial. Where convictions of the evidence shown, strong impeachment possibly be rea- various kinds can could be considered excluding sons arise for those which are instructions. a trial court substitute for the crime of the in- because cast doubt has been on 13. Substantial pressure lay jurors to evitable believe limiting instruction usefulness of a probably it ‘if he did before he preventing crimes evi misuse of did so this time.’ In Krulewitch v. dence. 716, L.Ed. S.Ct. U.S. system respect, 11. In this the American (1949), Mr. Justice Jackson system significantly differs from the exist- wrote: ing nations, many Civil Law prejudicial assumption that The naive prosecution permitted to delve ex- instructions effects can overcome tensively concerning into factors the back- * * * practicing all to the lawyers ground and character of accused. unmitigated know to be fiction. Notes, of Procedural Protection recently expressed A view similar was Defendant, supra Criminal n. 5 at 426. Warren, dissenting Chief Justice opinion majority appears rely, Spencer Texas, 12. The to 385 U.S. 87 S.Ct. extent, (1967) some to assertion L.Ed.2d : trial stated that of court Of it human nature course flouts impeach. transcript suppose evidence was to The not consider following reveals the statement was made trouble with defendant’s deciding “The court: of he these law in whether com- has questions currently charged the crime mitted credibility against test the of the witness.” This him. opinions. path of our ever, crucial here. Wheth follows issue trouble, though, path is too prejudicial that this prevent can er an instruction majority and allows the well-beaten application prior crimes pass, quickly, principal issue cannot, of a limit all too the absence it whether appeal. in this raised the trial court instruction abso to state with possible case makes quarrel I fact that the do not with the ex certainty Parish’s was lute permitting impeachment by rules impact of the posed prejudicial to the full may changed enacted and viction were evidence, left and that was crimes by this court. Nor do I assert that we that evidence as substan free to consider rule, not, pre- should as a be bound our guilty. tive argue only that in this vious decisions. rigid application case the our prior apparent, then, that the right fair jeopardized rules Parish’s to a unusually in this case created an thereby deprived impartial trial and Par- perilous situation. him of the due to which he joy- previously ish had been convicted entitled.14 divert the riding could have served to court, statute, ap- like a can be the essential attention from plied way as to constitu- such violate question whether Parish had in fact com- guarantees. tional matters little whether the one mitted offense On upheld this court has previously hand, was, best, record guided by pre- rule. we While marginally relevant the issue of ve- opinions determining vious hand, racity. six On the other because process, there has been a of due violation simi- Parish’s convictions were analysis in the final the decision must turn charged, lar to the which he was one with on the facts and circumstances of the indi- highly susceptible his criminal record was reason, vidual For I do not case. jury. Fur- prejudicial misuse properly think that we can allow our thermore, nothing there whatsoever decisions to dictate a conclusion in the prevent here to such misuse. present Moreover, case. the issue whether ig- majority Yet the chooses to introduction of prejudicial impact nore the deprive a defendant him his can Like the the instant case. right adequate- to a fair not been judge, majority ly rulings raised or decided dutifully plies the rules fact, this court.15 In the notable proceedings Studies have shown that this view is cable to the in district court See, g., through Mag.R.Crim.P. 1, unequivocally e. correct. Kalven and Zeisel, Jury, 127-130, The American relax authorizes its rules of (1966) ; justice: Other procedure in the interest of Trial, supra designed Crimes Evidence at n. 5 at These rules are to facilitate Moreover, justice. They has been observation business and advance attorneys frequently dispensed by made that will re relaxed asking limiting frain from for a instruc case shall be simply tion because it serves manifest that a strict ad- preju injustice. other than to call attention to the herence to them will work Ladd, supra dicial evidence. See n. 5 at governing 15. We have our construed rules suggested It has also been prior on four limiting illogical instructions and can State, occasions: Scott v. 445 P.2d 39 obeyed, juror. willing not be even (Alaska 1968); State, Gafford v. See Other Crimes Evidence (Alaska 1968) ; Sidney P.2d 405 v. Trial, supra n. 5 at 778. State, (Alaska 1965) ; 408 P.2d 858 judge 14. It must State, be noted that the trial and Anderson v. 384 P.2d 669 (Alaska only was not 1960). without cases, discretion to restrict theOf four prior exclude the evidence of Parish’s Scott v. State deals with a situation appli- convictions. R.Crim.P. similar to the one in the instant case. dissenting opinion ness exception of the Scott which lies at the basis of our juris- prudence. State,16 of this decisions If such v. evidence were al- here, lowed, do upon by majority only not relied would the time of courts a due possibility that wasted issues, even admit the the trial of collateral not persons but process might issue exist. accused of crime would be greatly prejudiced juries before exist; my view it and in The issue does would be otherwise embarrassed by an intractable obedi- cannot be avoided presenting their defenses on the issues rules and law. The ence really on trial. prior that evidence of long has been settled not be used in A review of the record of this case only rational when its cases impression leaves overwhelming dispo- that the accused has a criminal show evidence admitted more sition which him somewhat renders reasonably Parish could have tended to likely committed the offense to have show his general affinity joy- toward classified charged.17 This rule cannot be riding. argument While an abstract might device; rather it evidentiary as mere be made that the evidence was somehow protection been held to be fundamental relevant veracity, issue of when required In due law.18 realistically viewed the circumstances of States,19 example, the Lovely v. United the trial below inevitably lead to the con- Appeals for the Court of United States clusion that could have con- Fourth Circuit held: sidered estab- lishing general propensity to commit the The rule forbids the introduc- which thus crime other offenses hav- Because tion of evidence of hardly evidence could influ- tendency prove the have failed ing no reasonable ence they jury, it is charged, except far as that Parish’s con- so merely viction resulted tendency from the a criminal establish record, of his criminal accused, and not from part is not a mere techni- actually engaged that he had alleged out of the fun- cal rule law. It arises Accordingly, misconduct. I believe that fair- justice damental demand virtually basis, man Mc- he is a of criminal character. in- a factual Scott On Cormick, distinguishable § from the Parish case. Wigmore, also, 193-194 §§ However, only argument raised 1940). (3d ed. appellant Scott was that ment should not See, g., Lovely allowed on e. (4th 1948), basis of his misdemeanor and Rail convic- Cir. Although ton v. United tions. (5th Spencer Texas, In question in Scott raised the 554, 574-575, 385 U.S. 87 S.Ct. convictions had resulted 658-659, 17 L.Ed.2d majority opinion trial, in an unfair Warren, dissenting, Justice Chief wrote: gave only cursory mention, issue While this Court has never held that appears placed great weight to have the use of to show appellant on the fact had not nothing disposition more argued point. commit crime would violate Due Process Clause Fourteenth (Alaska 16. Scott v. Amendment, exercising our decisions 1968), Rabinowitz, dissenting. Justice supervisory power over criminal trials 17. The rule has been stated Professor courts, in federal as well as decisions McCormick as follows: appeals courts and of state prosecution may The rule is courts, suggest introduce crimes introduced for no other disposition than to show criminal acts of the accused unless the evidence (Foot- violate the Due Process Clause. substantially for relevant some other omitted) notes probability than to show a (4th committed the crime on trial because 19. 169 F.2d expressed al- in this should not be in this case sistent with the views opinion.20 lowed stand. dis- judgment reverse the I would RABINOWITZ, J., concurred. trial con- for a new remand trict court and handling Although reversal I believe that impeaching To defendant-witnesses. even is warranted end, the views existing would call attention rules of broad the ultimately, under ment, Scott, dissenting opinion scrutiny must stated critical supra have, They n. cited to the authorities after to our rules. directed alternatives which to the various all, permitted in the instant the situation Compare, already for formulated. case to arise. example, change necessity American Law Institute’s urgent 106(3) procedures of Evidence Rule Code existing Model (1942), with the of the United decisions thoroughly discussed Appeals Circuit Court Scott 1968). There, United (Alaska of Columbia Luck members of U.S.App.D.C. 151, pro- offer called the bar were change. and Gordon v. posals will he sufficient necessity F.2d 963 reemphasize here to approach enlightened adopting a more

Case Details

Case Name: Parish v. State

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 18, 1970

Citation: 477 P.2d 1005

Docket Number: 1180

Court Abbreviation: Alaska