*1 completely ... for retrial. and remand has sex with Hess's conviction sal of women thinking you're about When irrelevant.
this, [A.R.]. think about CONCLUSION
IV. reasons, REVERSE Hess's you ignore we [A.R.] For these Holmes asked Mr. ignore for a new you and REMAND like to have conviction Well he would you have [A.R.], like to Ralph Hess would ignore you [AR.] But can't
ignore [A.R.]. what [H.W.] corroborates [A.R.]
because happened in you what
told about recklessly Ralph Hess and how
Bronco lack of consent.
disregarded her attorney] says we don't defendant's
[The happened. ... of what evidence have other Appellant, WHITESIDES, A. Frank evidence because Wrong, have direct we of how direct evidence provides that [A.R.] sim- himself in situations handles Mr. Hess Alaska, OF DEPARTMENT STATE herself found [H.W.] to that in which
ilar SAFETY, DIVISION OF PUBLIC 9th, 1994. morning of October on VEHICLES, Appellee. MOTOR lack of consent. Recklessly disregards No. S-8431. you, that's direct told AR. That's what upon rely you entitled to evidence that of Alaska. Court rely it in this case. you to on urge I April13,2001. will [who] we know is] [slomeone [Hess recklessly disregard a wom- in and
come force to re- Use of lack of consent.
an's clothes, legs, to insert his spread
move unfortunate vice- vagina of
penis into the raped. he's
tims who testimony and relied on A.R.'s state part of its case at important it an
made only argued that the The state
second trial. consent; lack of to establish H.W.'s
issue was lack of disregard for H.W.'s reckless
Hess's
consent, A.R.'s the state relied urged the And it not consent.
that A.R. did jury But if the second
jury do the same. jury had reasonable that the first
had known recklessly Hess disre- whether
doubt about of consent or
garded lack AR.'s consent, jury might the second
AR. did not about wheth- doubt have had reasonable
also disregarded H.W.'s recklessly
er Hess
wishes. substantially may affected
The error say that the we cannot
the verdict. Because harmless, requires rever-
error exclusion "to avoid acquittal have been introduced should refuse to Having it was error to ruled that acquittal, jury prior we need unfairness." fundamental inform the unconstitutional argument that the not consider Hess's alternative *2 Zelensky, Ketchikan,
Michael Appel- J. lant. Kamm,
Marilyn Attorney J. Assistant Gen- eral, Botelho, General, Attorney Bruce M. Juneau, Appellee. MATTHEWS, Justice, Before Chief
EASTAUGH,FABE, BRYNER, and CARPENETI, Justices. breath. Kertz test of his
OPINION mit to a chemical Intoximeter operation of the explained the MATTHEWS,Chief Justice. (the apparatus that would measure licensed presented is whether question breath) of alcohol Whitesides's amount in-person hearings entitled drivers rеfusing consequences of possible well as concerning revo- hearing officer before *3 He also offered test. to take breath licenses, or whether of their cation telephone and tele- access to a Whitesides that process. We hold hearings satisfy due directory he could call phone so that in-per- credibility material drivers' where attorney. 'The to required. hearings are son prepared the Intoxime- Eventually, Kertz in-person communications important, drive is sample breath and asked a ter to receive sense of transmitting a are more effective Whitesides, to submit a sam- you "Did want truth, and telling the a by responded Whitesides ple of breath?" in- outweigh the value of costs do added any- driving that he "wasn't protesting heаrings. person repeated point, Kertz At that where." consequences for potential recitation of the Facts test. Kertz refusing to a chemical to submit January pm. on approximately 11:00 At to the test sever- to submit asked Whitesides Brian 28, 1996, Police Ketchikan Officer times; responses to Whitesides's al more possible car fire to a was alerted Kertz poorly ambiguous and requests these were Upon investigation, Ketchikan. downtown occasion, example, on one For focused. billow- "large amount of smoke Kertz saw a then take the test but agreed to Whitesides truck engine" pickup ing from the driving. been On protested that he had not friend were and his Frank Whitesides which occasion, asked to review Whitesides another sitting in the was driv- sitting. Whitesides alreаdy read to that Kertz had information seat, ignition. in the keys were er's him. Kertz's ignored friend Whitesides and his eventually that White- concluded Kertz Kertz used his exit the vehicle. command to and noti- to take the test sides had refused coming flames extinguisher put out fire to that, before changed his mind fied him he pulled the two the vehicle and from beneath process, with the rest of Kertz finished truck. out of the sample. allowed to submit he would be Kertz, exuded According Whitesides to protestations Whitesides's Disregarding intoxicants" and "very strong odor of test, to take the he had not refused "bloodshot, watery." Based eyes were whether he wanted asked Whitesides observations, field Kertz Kertz administered on his saying that he refused. Whitesides; sign a form sobriety based tests tests, during lawyer to performance thеse if he needed a Whitesides's Whitesides asked signed it. After driving read the form before placed him under arrest Kertz Kertz, de- (DWT).1 with Whitesides some discussion while intoxicated attorney. to call an cided not station, police Kertz took Whitesides to read a Kertz then allowed Whitesides "processing" Whitesides for began where he offense and its detailing the refusal "implied document read Whitesides DWI. Kertz pre- Kertz consequences while informed attendant warning," in which Kertz consent time. for a second pared the Intoximeter being asked to sub- that he was Whitesides committed, percent 28.35.030(a) or more there is 0.10 operating a vehicle 1. AS defines person's blood or 100 weight while intoxicated follows: of alcohol per milligrams driving or of alcohol milliliters while more crime of A commits the operates or drives grams intoxicated if the or more of when there is 0.10 blood, or breath; operates aircraft or a water- person's motor vehicle or or per alcohol 210 liters (3) craft person is the combined under while (1) intoxicating the influence intoxicating liquor and a controlled while under influence of substance; liquor, any controlled or substance. (2) a chemical test when, as determined alleged offense four after the taken within hours you Kertz then told Whitesides grounds "[ilf driver's license on that included his time, refuse this this is the second time that claim that he did not refuse to take a breath machine, you going I've run the to be requested test. that the charged." responded by asking person. 1, 1996, conducted On March minute," repeаted "[wlait Kertz Department Safety gave of Public White- driving. he wasn't Kertz then told White- sides notice of an administrative hearing your opportunity. sides that last "[this scheduled "at the discretion of D.M.V." got give yes you You've me or no. Do sample want to submit a of breath on the charged Whitesides was also with the Whitesides, however, Intoximeter?" did not criminal offenses of DWI and A Refusal. "no"; rather, reply "yes" with a he asked criminal trial commenced but ended in a Kertz whether he would be arrested for DWI mistrial. charges The criminal were later if he submitted to the test. attorney's dismissed the district office. *4 Kertz then read Whitesides a "notice and (DMV) The Division of Motor Vehicles order of revocation" for his refusal to submit never an in-person hearing. scheduled Following to the breath test. Whitesides's Mеanwhile, 4, 1996, July effective legisla the question consequences taking as to the 28.15.166(e) ture amended AS that test,2 passing the his comment about the hearings by telephone revocation "be held faced, difficulty of the situation he his refusal unless hearing the officer finds that a tele sign a form indicating his refusal to take phonic hearing substantially prejudice would test, the and various other comments Whitesides, rights the time, the involved the hear Kertz asked one last "Do you ing sample in-person want to submit or that an hearing of breath in the Intoximeter 80007" gave When Whitesides presented decide the issues to be answer, an indiscernible the officer declared hearing."3 Consequently, Department the process the over and turned off the video Safety telephone of Publiс scheduled a hear recorder. Kertz then issued Whitesides a ing objected for October 1996. Whitesides "notice and order advising of revocation" him telephone to the hearing, arguing that "[the that his driver's license would be revoked for in-person failure to allow a hearing would refusing testing. to submit to substantially prejudice [his] ... At hearing administrative several with, that he is a ... along witness if neces later, months Whitesides testified that he sary, arresting potentially officer and agreed had to take the test about "ten see- object another witness...." Whitesides also onds" after Kertz turned off the video re- delay ed to the in scheduling extensive his corder. Kertz that he testified could not hearing. remember whether Whitesides had made this . The officer overruled Whitesides's offer. Kertz was also asked if he would have objections, proceeded and the DMV with its permitted Whitesides to take the test against revocation action li- agreed just Whitesides had Whitesides's to take it after cense. The officer heard White- Kertz turned off the video recorder. He challenge sides's uncertainty indicated "I a series guess because I've revocation actually happen never had it I hearings involving that can re- three White- before, my member sides, career." officer, attorney, and the beginning eight on October 1996-some Proceedings months after the hearing argu- arrest. After sought attorney Whitesides ment from Whitesides's administrative review of and testi- Whitesides, Kertz, the "notice and mony order of revocation" of his from and the dis- Department's 2. The depаrtment Ketchikan Police unofficial held "at the office of the nearest transcript contains an erroneous version of this person requesting to the residence of the exchange. We have characterized Whitesides's hearing." provides Current law for the same tape. comment based on our review of the in-person they hearings locations for when required. found to be Sp. § 3. See ist Sess. Ch. 8 SLA 1996. Former 28.15.166(e) provided AS for an hear- only the first issue decide that We the criminal attorney who dismissed trict found that hearing officer charges, suromarily determine the oth has merit and to submit to a breath refused Whitesides adversely to Whitesides.4 er issues was ordered re- license test. Whitesides's year from the date period of one for a voked Hearing In-pеrson Denial The DMV's decision. officer's Due Violation. Process Constituted to the appealed this decision court, upheld offi- which Arguing credibility was crucial to that court, appeal to this determination. On cer's he issue in this the central (1) the DMV violated argues test, Whitesides agreed to take the breath by denying an in- process right to due should be that his license revocation contends (2) delay in that the DMV's person hearing; for failure to "reversed grant hearing violat- the license revocation holding hearing." a chance to observe Without (8) process; right to due ed Whitesides's states, demeanor, the hear Whitesides's governing adminis- regulations" the "lack of "fairly meaningful ing officer could not hearings violated trative license ly" credibility. He contends assess his (4) process rights; that the Whitesides's in the hear credibility was at issue since his re- findings that Whitesides hearing officer's ing, the due clause Alaska unsupported by were the breath test fused pres him affords Constitution (5) evidence; hearing officer that the *5 in to the trier of ent his finding that there were reasonable erred applicable review fact. The standard of guilty was grounds to believe that Whitesides novo.6 this issue is de he was arrested. of DWI when claim, delay evidence that Whitesides refused to take the Concerning Whitesides likens tial his Likewise, tape supports the video an infer- test. $8,850 v. in United this case to United States 2005, 555, Currency, 103 S.Ct. unlikely 461 U.S. States that Whitesides cured his ence that it is (1983), States in which the United L.Ed.2d 143 given the refusals, the behavior shown by prior delay initiating Supreme a Court held that tape. stated: As the may and violate due civil forfeiture case asking leap is me to take a of Mr. Whitesides suggested that used to determine a test similar to people I have to believe that two trans- faith. speedy right a to a trial in whether an accused's their demeanor as soon as the video- formed Id. at 103 S.Ct. criminal case is violated. instance, tape Mr. was turned off. different from civil forfei 2005. But this case is negative changes Whitesides attitude to deprived ture cases because Whitesides was changed positive Kertz from one and Officer hearing, pending the whereas to drive of his trying get sample trying breath property to be forfeit civil cases the forfeiture happened. prevent I one. don't believe posses typically the ed has been removed from Further, re- Kertz's statement that he did not pending respondent the hear sion and use of the anyone recanting supports ever also the member Further, although ing. claims Id. Whitesides place did not take conclusion that recantation eight-month delay resulted in Officer in Whitesides's case. concerning memory what was Kertz's lack argument not reason- to the that there were As off, this after the video recorder was shut said grounds to believe that Whitesides had been able supported At White- claim is not record. DWI, guilty argues that the vehicle speedy trial within criminal in June sides's sitting inoperable in which he was was because it limits, already was unable either to Kertz caught sitting while he was in it. But had fire directly ac verify contradict Whitesides's or to the evidence is unсontradicted that the vehicle camera events after the video was count of on, operable and when Whitesides turned turned off. Whitesides's con- Officer Kertz's observations of regulations argument lack of Whitesides's reasonably suggested that Whitesides was dition fully by the decision of the addressed intoxicated. carrying out administra- court. Procedures tive license revocations are set forth in review of I, of the Alaska Constitution Article section supplement- procedures, as AS 28.15.166. These part, de provides, shall be law, by pertinent ed case afford a licensee due life, liberty, property, prived due or without process. claims that the offi- process of law." determination that he had refused to take cer's unsupported substantial evi- breath test State, Safety, Dep't dence; v. Pub. 6. See Barcott juxtaposes while such a claim his refusals (Alaska 1987) (court adopt will P.2d alleged running the video camera was with the light precedent, persuasive rea- most just video camera rule cure of these refusals after the son, policy). tape and was turned off. The video itself is substan- apply We the framework of Math contemporary society public is that trans- Eldridge7 evaluating portation systems may when ews not meet the needs many proceedings satisfy proc travellers [sic] administrative and other forms of ess.8 We consider: transportation, taxicabs, such as are not economically large portion for a feasible First, private interest that will be af population. second, action;
fected the official deprivation required risk of an erroneous of such Whether a driver's license is used, through only bread, procedures delivering interest and commuting to value, work, probable any, transporting of additional or elderly, children or the procedural fi safeguards; meeting appointments, substitute medical attending interest, nally, political functions, including any the Government's social or or combi- purposes, the function involved and the fiscal and nation of these or other the revo- license, suspension administrative burdens that the additional cation or of that even procedural period, requirement substitute for a six-month can and often does entail.[9] would personal constitute a severe and econоmic hardship. proceed We to review these considerations in driver, plaintiff, For as a route her abili
the context of this case. ty delivery very to drive a truck her affects important 1. A driver's license is an suspension livelihood and the of her license property interest. obviously directly, will affect her immedi retaining interest Whitesides's ately, Further, adversely. single as a right to Both drive. federal and state courts working parent, she is faced with the nu important property interest. plained *6 their continued required by the Fourteenth Amendment." plained licensees, sued licenses are son, Vehicles, a driver's license: sential away In Berlinghieri the United States recognized without at that, the California the length ... "[oJnee licenses are issued pursuit [which] possession mаy that a driver's license is an the "important v. procedural practical Department of a livelihood." are not to be Supreme interests In Bell v. Bur- importance become es Court Court ex- of 10 Motor of the taken ... ex Is of 11 13 driver's license is many merous pension reliable means of tive decisions that have an full individual six This court has likewise [12] ous effects . months, may constitutes of which independent responsibilities Calling "sufficiently plaintiff's on her "life situation" and "quasi-judicial" necessitate driver's lieense revocation transportation. have important property review" license, recognized vital profound of child impact ... even for speedy administra the court.! to and obvi The sus that "[a] rearing, compel on the thus, only interest." present society,
In our
hearings quasi-criminal,
travel-oriented
we have held that
right
reliability
the
to test the
of a breath
the retention of a
driver's license is an
applies
test
in civildriver's license revocation
important
right
every person
who has
[T)he reality
a
. ..
proceedings
prosecu-
obtained such license.
well
as
criminal
319,
893,
7. 424 U.S.
96 S.Ct
We
telephone hearings
requires
nature of the
ports the use of
and tes
that we consider the
(Alaska 1997)
impor
accused
22. 936 P.2d
518 n. 5
bad and where an
considers
omitted)).
(footnote
tant"
1986).
(Alaska
23. 727 P.2d
26. Alaska R. Civ. P. 99.
there
is no
Notably,
provision whereby
juror may participate
tele-
See,
Williams,
e.g.,
Monsma v.
phonically.
(Alaska 1963) ("In
heavy
with de
was,
meanor
evidence
as this
i was the task of
(Alaska 1996),
denied,
27. 929 P.2d
cert.
*8
court,
ours,
the trial
not
to resolve the apparent
plaintiff
1198,
1555,
S.Ct.
Public will prоviding a who is under threat of savings objective government. But given the cireumstances and alternatives dis- in-person hearing. with an license revocation above, providing cussed we do not think that hearings the norm until the 1996 Such were 28.15.166(e). them, in-person parties hearings to who want passage sug- There is no AS issue, credibility in cases where their at gestion legislative history in the of the 1996 significantly costly purpose must be more than the act that its was to increase the revo- present system. refusing cation rate of those accused of Indeed, if the rate breath tests. Considering importance then the by prohibiting were increased driving privilege, greater potential for prove hearings, would this tend effective communication con- erroneous reform increased the risk of the text, the need for effective communication deprivation driving rights. issue, where the of a is at prejudice presump- and the limited nature of the saving is at the root of the Cost by providing in-person the state would suffer prohibition in-person hearings. tive cases, hearings such we concludethat such length hearing by telephone of a conducted hearings provided requested should be where significantly should different than a not be person. hearing conducted in But party. officers are to travel to the DMV offices reside, .166(e) respondents
closest to where then Be Subsection Should Construed So Unconstitutionality. travel costs and travel time for offi- as to Avoid greater in-person hearings cers will be 28.15.166(e) Alaska Statute re telephone hearings. than for quires telephone hearings "unless the hear only greater telephonic hearing But costs are incurred officer finds that a substantially prejudice cases in trav- rights which must would necessary. el. no travel most cases involved or that an in Anchorage. in-person hearing Most revocations arise DMV to decide the employees in large has a number of Anchor- presented hearing." issues to be This age specify and could some officers does not the circumstances under Similarly, telephone hearing may substantially to maintain offices there. in cases which a arising justification prejudice Juneau there is no a defendant's or when an in- 22.15.100(10) (granting judges 30. 424 S.Ct. 47 L.Ed.2d U.S. See AS district *9 (1976). magistrates authority "to review administra- 18 person's tive revocation of a driver's license or privilege designat- drive ... nonresident when Eldridge, 31. See Mathews U.S. at by ed as a the commissioner of S.Ct. 893. and with the ad- administration consent of the system."). ministrative director of the court Whitesides, counsel, hearing, through assert- necessary to decide the person hearing is "I ed that did not refuse to take a breath it presented. "Where is reasonable issues objection so, test." In his to an administrative a statute to avoid do we will construe keeping problems." In with stated, counsel, constitutional again hearing, through hearing in-person that "the failure to allow in-person hearings are our conclusion that substantially prejudice process in where the would required cases licensee, with, along that he is a witness credibility party question, we con of а necessary, arresting officer...." These .166(e) in-person subsection strue specific, might a hear have been more but hearings requests where a such assertions questions depend together they on the should have led the ing and material denying credibility party's testimony. officer to realize that Whitesides was tested, that he had refused to be and that he present made a In the Whitesides arresting disagree and the officer would in-person hearing timely request for an This about whether he had refused. dis- objected telephone hearing was when a inherently credibility agreement raised is- This case involves mate- scheduled instead. sue that was critical to the limited issues Therefore, credibility. an rial issues of his proceeding. relevant to his revocation It was in-pеrson hearing held. should been deny an abuse of discretion to therefore opportunity present an live Whitesides Conclusion to the officer. superior RE- decision of the court is I the court therefore concur result and this case is REMANDED to VERSED although respectfully disagree I with reaches court with instructions to VA- analysis. its driver's CATE the revocation of Whitesides's and to REMAND the case to the license Justice, CARPENETI, dissenting. in-person Division of Motor Vehicles for an hearing. license revocation today's ruling I for two rea- dissent from First, disagree I with the court's im- sons. EASTAUGH, Justice, concurring. plied adequately finding that Whitesides The result the court reaches here is cor- raised before the officer his claim rect, analysis. disagree I with the court's but process in-person required that due hear- view, my Carpeneti's In dissent cor- Justice credibility was a central issue. because case-specific inquiry rectly reasons that a fact, entire In nowhere administrative required deciding when whether due "credibility" of this case is the record word hearing in demands that a a driver's license did, shotgun found. What Whitesides person. In case be held com- claims, fashion, non-specific was raise several opinion may parison, the court's assume now, court has after the to one of which this every inherently driver's license revocation fact, particular meaning attached and that is not raises issues Second, support. does not and more record particularized request to make a question, properly important, the statute in-pеrson hearing by identifying logi- for an Depart- applied by hearing officers of the why hearing must cally valid reasons Safety ment of Public whose decisions live. held court, protects the due reviewable process rights of drivers who face license Carpen- though agree Even I with Justice to tests. revocation for refusal submit case-specific, I inquiry eti that must be agree with the result reached the court. request Whitesides did not question It close grounds credibility would be hearing officer circumstances informed the at issue. deny that made it an abuse of discretion to balance, requested request. But on Whitesides did first request for administrative enough. hearing in of the number Ketchikan because (Alaska 1999). Chenega Corp. Corp., v. Exxon See *10 "[Mly requests hearing of witnesses involved: client The under this be section must hearing by telephone of his license hearing that his administrative held unless the offi person in in telephonic held Ketchikan. hearing revocation be cer finds that a would words, hearing this be con- substantially prejudice rights In other should the of the in Hearing the Officer Ketchikan. ducted in hearing involved the or that an This is due to the number witnesses to be in-person hearing necessary to decide of added.) Later, presented the hearing.[2] (Emphasis issues be the called." after the department telephonic hearing, scheduled a legislature It clear seems that the was con- "Objection an To Administrative filed precisely cerned about the issues addressed (and Telephonic Hearing Request for [sic] today's opinion procedure and set out the objected Hearing)" in which he to the DMV's by which those issues should be addressed. telephonic hearing. notice of He stated: hearing And the officer consid- non-specific request ered the for an hearing in-person
The failure to allow a hearing, properly determined that it did not substantially prejudice rights would the grounds, set out licensee, sufficient notified counsel along along in that he is a witness deficiency, with, specifi- for Whitesides of its necessary, and arresting if the offi- [sic] (in cally supplementation request invited potentially cer and another re- witness DA). in-person hearing: for an buttal, Stephens, Trevor Asst. Be- witnesses, number cause diverse y[ojur This letter is reference to mo- Ketchikan, any hearing should be tion hearing your for an in teleрhone, requests and licensee the hear- client Frank The Whitesides. reschedul- ing in Ketchikan. hearing not change does 28.15.166(g). issues for review under AS added.) short, (Emphasis Whitesides's governing The statutes the issues remain argument that was the number of witnesses place the same and were in at the time Ketchikan, required not that your client's arrest. Your motion is de- credibility Finally, shortly was his concern. nied. before the filed "Addi rescheduling We do not believe that Objections Hearing." tional While he ar telephonic hearing any to a denies gued ways process several in which his due participant rights process. their under due rights violated upcoming would be Your any motion did not establish circum- hearing, he made no mention of the that fact substantially prejudice stances that would telеphonic it or that credibility was to be rights parties involved or that cireumstances, an issue. In these I cannot person hearing an in necessary to de- join implied finding the court's that White- cide the issues. adequately sides raised as the rea requesting son for hearing. there are circumstances that we have If of, mot you present been advised should 28.15.166(e) Alaska protects Statute the due hearing. them at the Please contact this process rights drivers with adminis- faced you any questions. office trative revocation their licenses for failure added.) (Emphasis Whitesides failed to re- to submit to tests. spond to the letter or to advise the officer at the hearing of those "cireumstances gives the hearing statute officer the power in-person hearing if it is that [the not been ad- had] protect of the driver vised of" that would lead her to her reverse or for provide other reasons: in-person hearing. decision not to argued hypothermia"; that was a violation of due and that federal law makes clear process regulations DMV act without any only temporary can the commissioner; delay "[rlevocation in his case of more than six adopted by requires panoply of a driver's license full temporary. months was more than trial"; jury protections, including "indisputably that his conduct was safe conduct: 28.15.166(e). 2. AS braked, safely parked safely warding off *11 proper lieve that in The statute establishes stan this case the officer did protect dard to of the driver to declining not abuse her discretiоn in to order in-person hearing.3 will be in-person Such where the reason ad telephonic hearing substantially if a afforded witnesses," vanced was "the number of prejudices any party or if an hear where no mention made of assessing was any necessary to decide issues.4 witnesses, credibility of the I would find no properly this case the deter abuse of discretion and affirm the mined that "the number of witnesses" was court's affirmance of the officer's in-per not a sufficient reason to action. is, substantially hearing, son did not
prejudice parties nor estab in-person hearing
lish that an But decide issues. she went further
and noted the standard for argument further or
invited information cireumstances,
the issue. Under these there no reason construe the statute further provide litigant M.W., and no reason to relief to a Appellant, who neither raised origi issue v. nally requested by nor when the hearing Alaska, STATE of DEPARTMENT provide any officer to further rеason for the HEALTH AND OF SOCIAL sought. relief he SERVICES, Appellee. jurisprudence clear Our makes the case- specific application No. S-9557. nature of the of discre tionary regarding telephonic rules versus Alaska. Court of proc eedings.5 We ourselves have adopted telephonic proceedings a rule for April adopts the standard-absence of sub prejudice-utilized legislature stantial 28.15.166(e): in AS may par
The court allow one or more counsel,
ties, judge witnesses or the
participate telephonically any hearing
deposition good cause and in the ab prejudice opposing parties.[6]
sence substantial state,
Especially in rural areas of the telephonic uncommonly pro-
courts not allow location,
ceedings judge where one another, attorneys
witness and the in an-
other. department's
The court should review the light specific
action in facts of each always
case under the standard that we have
utilized, abuse of discretion.7 Because I be testifying precluding
3. See id. discretion in from telephonically). 4. See id. 6. Alaska R. Civ. Proc. 99. Compare Gregg Gregg, 776 P.2d (Alaska 1989) (trial court did not abuse discre- allowing telephonic testimony tion in of material at Silvers, 790; 7. See 999 P.2d Carvalho v. Car objection) Silvers, witness over with Silvers v. (Alaska 1992). valho, (Alaska 2000) (trial P.2d court abused