Source: http://www.touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-7222.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:38:09+00:00

Document:
Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                            ACIFIC  REPORTER.
Alaska,  Third  Judicial  District,  Anchorage,  Michael  L.
Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Petitioner.
Lindemuth, Attorney General, Anchorage, for Respondent.
Carney, Justices, and Eastaugh, Senior Justice.
Constitution and Alaska Administrative Rule 23(a).
member saw someone toss a white bag through an open window into an upstairs room.
Department of Corrections (DOC) to take Wassillie back to jail.
After waiting several hours in the lobby, Wassillie walked out of the facility.
him into custody.                He was taken to jail and later charged with second-degree escape.
DID call Bob notifying him on [sic] the runaway at 1945.
Building on lockdown[;] escape procedures started.
Discharge Summary," an "Absence Report," and several pages of intake paperwork.
Wassillie for second-degree escape, a felony.
other staff members with first-hand knowledge ofWassillie's departure fromthe facility.
The second jury returned a guilty verdict.
exception" and affirmed Wassillie's conviction.
Wassillie's subsequent conviction following an error-free trial.
5                     Wassillie v. State, 366 P.3d 549, 552-54 (Alaska App. 2016).
judgment." ' "              We apply the same standard of review to "constitutional issues of law,"
such as the scope of a party's right to indictment by grand jury.
purpose of the provision and the intent of the framers." ' "
(quoting  Barton v. N. Slope Borough Sch. Dist.                                   , 268 P.3d 346, 350 (Alaska 2012)).
7           Cameron v. State, 171 P.3d 1154, 1156 & n.6 (Alaska 2007); Simpson v.
Murkowski, 129 P.3d 435, 440 (Alaska 2006).
21 P.3d 367, 370 (Alaska 2001)).
P.3d 373, 380 (Alaska 2001)).
following their discovery of Wassillie's absence.  The "Resident Discharge Summary"
for which he was charged.
under the rule we applied in                    Adams v. State           .
asks that we overrule contrary holdings in both Adams and Taggard v. State.
overrule, requires that the conviction be reversed.
Exception To The Hearsay Rule.
11         598  P.2d  503  (Alaska   1979).
12         Alaska  R.  Evid.  803(6).
13         500  P.2d  238  (Alaska   1972).
14         Alaska  R.  Evid.  801(c).
16          Alaska R. Evid. 101 (general applicability of evidence rules); Alaska R.
absent compelling justification for its introduction.").
circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness").
further undermining its trustworthiness.                                                                                       For the reasons that follow, we agree.
of the day to day operations of a business."
admissible under the business records exception.
19                   Alaska  R.  Evid.  803(6)  cmt.
20                   Palmer  v.  Hoffman,  318  U.S.   109,   114  (1943).
22                   Hayes  v.  State,  581  P.2d  221,  222  n.1  (Alaska   1978).
records  exception  to  the  hearsay  rule.").
24                   Noffke v. Perez, 178 P.3d 1141, 1147 (Alaska 2008).
25              2  KENNETH   S.  BROUN  ET  AL.,  MCCORMICK   ON  EVIDENCE   §  288  (7th  ed.
2016);  see  also  2  FRED  LANE, LANE  GOLDSTEIN TRIAL TECHNIQUE  §  12:59  (3d  ed.  2016).
26              Owens-Illinois,  Inc.  v.  Armstrong ,  604  A.2d  47,  50-51  (Md.   1992).
27              318  U.S.   109,   110-15  (1943).
N.E.2d 1104, 1106 (Ill. App. 1977); Solomon v. Shuell, 457 N.W.2d 669, 678-82 (Mich.
guards' "conduct reports," that "included the self-serving statements of the defendants"
"investigatory report intended for prosecutorial purposes").
But cf. United States v. Chong, 98 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1118-19 (D. Haw.
(holding that jail incident reports were admissible at sentencing); Paey Assocs., Inc. v.
similarly exempts all "investigative reports by police and law enforcement personnel"
when the agency "has no motive to attempt to affect the outcome in a particular case"
the reports attested to preparing them).
33          Alaska R. Evid. 803(8).
to do with prosecuting a particular person for criminal activity").
case" is reliable enough to be admissible.
in having Texas rule 803(8)(B) if it can be bypassed by resort to Texas rule 803(6).").
37         Huggins, 659 P.2d at 616.
as a business record under Evidence Rule 803(6)).
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clarke                                                                                                           ,   Nos. 248934, 249398, 2007 WL 2710821, *5                                                                                                                                                                                                         (Mich. App.
the requisite indicia of trustworthiness.").
factual matter" and therefore holding escape reports inadmissible).
43                                 2 K                ENNETH   S. B                                                     ROUN ET AL                                                    ., M                 CCORMICK ON                                                                 EVIDENCE   § 288 (7th ed.
governmental duties" and "was not prepared in anticipation of litigation").
second-hand source who ha[d] a stake in pending litigation"
44           State  v.  Huggins,  659  P.2d  613,  616  (Alaska  App.   1982).
45           Bermen,  798  S.W.2d  at   12.
46           Alaska  R.  Evid.  803(6)  cmt.
47           Huggins,  659  P.2d  at  616.
48          Alaska R. Evid. 803(6) cmt.
regular course, an essential link is broken."  Id.
under the business records exception.
district attorney of any infraction that could amount to a felony);                                                                                                       see Layton City v.
'prosecution' of a probation violation").
52               Huggins, 659 P.2d at 616.
B.                The Error In The Grand Jury Proceeding Requires Reversal.
error-free trial rendered the earlier error harmless."
indictment of a grand jury."
grand jury that there is probable cause to hold him for trial."
53                Alaska  Const.  art.  I,  §  8.
54                Michael  v.  State,  805  P.2d  371,  374  (Alaska  1991)  (emphasis  in  original).
[the] purpose [of returning indictments],"
the governor has the right to call the grand jury."
purpose of the indictment .
or  information,  which  shall  be  concurrent  remedies  .  .  .  ."
59         Id. at 1322 (statement of Chief Clerk).
60         Id. at 1322 (emphasis added).
62           Id. at 1334 (statement of Delegate Hellenthal).
a grand jury and require him to indict everybody by grand jury.").
64           Id. at 286 (statement of Delegate Warren Taylor).
65           Id. at 1323, 1325 (statement of Delegate Buckalew).
under the control of the district attorney."
modern, and I think it serves very little[,] if any, useful purpose").
landed in the jail," but the grand jury brought a no true bill "and he is a free citizen. . . .
100 cases he could secure [it]."
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
sandwich"  (citing  Editorial,  Do   We  Need  Grand  Juries?,  N.Y.
control abuses by the government and protect[ing] the interests of the accused.' "
a charge for which there is no probable cause to believe him guilty,"
83         Id.  (citing  Preston  v.  State,  615  P.2d  594,  602  (Alaska   1980)).
84         Id.  (alterations  in  original)  (quoting  Preston,  615  P.2d  at  602).
85          United  States  v.  Mechanik,  475  U.S.  66,  70  (1986).
86         Id.   at   74   (O'Connor,   J.,   concurring   in   the  judgment)   (quoting   Wood   v.
Georgia,  370  U.S.  375,  390  (1962)).
as a discretionary matter, might have indicted for a lesser offense, or not indicted at all.").
criminal process.                  Indictment is not just a step in this process; it is a foundation stone.
is supported by the evidence." (quoting Sullivan, 503 N.E.2d at 77)).
88          Atchak v. State , 640 P.2d 135, 151 (Alaska App. 1981) (citing Keith v.
evidence   will  be   available   at   trial."
falls into one of three enumerated exceptions.
90          Alaska R. Crim. P. 6(r)(1).
to prosecutions for driving while intoxicated.                                     See  Alaska R. Crim. P. 6(r)(2), (3), (6).
indictment before trial when indictment was based on hearsay evidence).
v. State, 669 P.2d 1316, 1319-20 (Alaska App. 1983)).
the evidence contained no other description of the relevant facts.
as to why the prosecutor presented the incident reports in lieu of in-person testimony."
95            Alaska R. Crim. P. 6(r)(1).
97             598 P.2d 503 (Alaska 1979).
98             500 P.2d 238 (Alaska 1972).
99            Adams , 598 P.2d at 509-10; Taggard, 500 P.2d at 243-44.
contrary precedent for the reasons that follow.
indictments based on inadmissible hearsay.
insufficient to support its decision to indict.
sufficient reliability to support the indictment."
100	 	        475 U.S. 66, 72 (1986).
of an indictment after the guilt of the defendant has been established at a fair trial."  Id.
Several years later we reaffirmed this conclusion in                                                 Adams.
convicted of mayhem for engaging in a street brawl.
107          598 P.2d 503, 507, 510 (Alaska 1979).
sufficient uncontradicted, competent evidence to indict).
114            475 U.S. 66 (1986).
115            Federal Criminal Rule 6(d) is similar to Alaska Criminal Rule 6(k).
necessarily invalidate a trial verdict.  See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S.
hearsay when other, admissible evidence was presented that justified the indictment).
117           Mechanik, 475 U.S. at 68-69, 71-72.
to the attention of the trial court before the commencement of trial."
thus distinguished from our own governing precedent and from the case now before us.
4.          Stare decisis counsels against overturning our precedent.
issue afresh in every case that raised it.' "
offenses for which they were convicted." ).
in those cases "is seriously flawed."
effectiveness and integrity of the justice system may validly be called into question."
would render the right to indictment by a grand jury "a nullity."
122                   Id.  (emphasis in original) (quoting                                                                                 Pratt & Whitney                                         , 852 P.2d at 1176).
123                   See  Alaska R. Crim. P. 6(r).
124                    598 P.2d 503, 510 (Alaska 1979).
and this case, a trial court failed to dismiss an invalid indictment.
126           Id. ;  Taggard v. State                        , 500 P.2d 238 (Alaska 1972).
127            Taggard, 500 P.2d at 243.
ARA  SUN  BEALE,  ET AL                              .,GRAND  JURY  LAW  & P                              RACTICE   § 1:9 (2d ed.
errors   that   have   the   effect  of   invalidating   an   indictment   and   those   that   do   not.
in some way to the return of th[e] indictment."
the error that made it invalid was jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional -requires a remedy.
tainted   with  irregularity."131                                                                       In   Taggard  we  acknowledged  the  "unfortunate"
Again,werecognizethatnotall ruleviolations result                                                                                                               in invalidindictments.
fairness of the grand jury proceedings."                                                                                     Hurn v. State                              , 872 P.2d 189, 193 (Alaska App.
130                 Adams , 598 P.2d at 510.
obtained on sufficient evidence, the indictment must be dismissed because of the . . .
failure to present sufficient evidence to the Grand Jury."
valid conviction could not be obtained on an invalid indictment.
convinced that this original conclusion was erroneous.
453 (2d Cir. 1968) (Medina, J., dissenting)).
132         Id.   at 243-44 (quoting                     People v. Jackson                  , 223 N.E.2d 790, 792 (N.Y.
spared a new trial outweighs the defendant's constitutional right to a valid indictment.
Brooks v. Horner                  , 344 P.3d 294, 297 (Alaska 2015)).
Comm'n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)).
constructiveamendment of an indictment was reversible error, even though "most states"
138          Cooper v. District Court, 133 P.3d 692, 701 (Alaska App. 2006).
4.7% are convicted at trial and the remaining 95.3% through plea agreements).
hearsay statements of an alleged accomplice).
was invalid, we REVERSE his conviction.
142             Thomas, 102 P.3d at 943 (quoting                                                Carlson, 65 P.3d at 859).
BOLGER, Justice, with whom STOWERS, Chief Justice, joins, dissenting in part.
I agree with the court's conclusion about the grand jury error in this case.
of Alaska Criminal Rule 6(r).
probable cause to believe" that Wassillie had committed that crime.
convention suggesting a right to grand jury nullification).
that the      Miranda  error had affected the trial court proceedings.
adjudicate a child in need of aid.
defendant is convicted after an error-free trial.
3            Wagner  v.  State,  347  P.3d   109,   111  (Alaska  2015).
5           Id .  at   114-16.
6           595  P.2d   147,   155  n.26  (Alaska   1979)  (citing  Gerstein  v.  Pugh,  420  U.S.
103,   119  (1975);  Ker  v.  Illinois,   119  U.S.  436,  439  (1886)).
Johnson Int'l Co. v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 431, 434 (8th Cir. 1994)).
incorrect at the time they were decided.
lacked sufficient reliability to support the indictment.
right that undoubtedly has an impact on the trial proceedings.
9           500  P.2d  238  (Alaska   1972).
10         598  P.2d  503  (Alaska   1979).
914  P.2d   1244,   1245-46  (Alaska   1996))).
12         Taggard, 500 P.2d at 243.
412  S.W.2d  455  (Mo.  1967); State  v. Nolan,  418  S.W.2d  51  (Mo.  1967); State  v.
Sossamon, 130 S.E.2d 638 (N.C. 1963)).
418 S.W.2d at 55; Sossamon, 130 S.E.2d at 640.
that easily could be corrected at trial.
issues that would otherwise evade review."
right to a grand jury indictment.
of  the  charges  against  him.").
16            598  P.2d  503,  510  (Alaska   1979)  (footnotes  omitted).
R.  App.  P.  402(b)(4)  (allowing  review  when  the  issue  "might  otherwise  evade  review").
19            Wagner  v.  State,  347  P.3d  109,  115  (Alaska  2015)  (quoting  Alaska  R.  App.
questioned before the grand jury in tandem.
proper indictment may have spared him."
21        475 U.S. 66 (1986).
22        Id . at 67.
24        Id . at 71.
25        Id . (citing Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S.  1, 14 (1983)).
from a pretrial determination of this issue.
court of appeals on this basis.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §  288
 §  12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 288
 v. 
 v.

 §  8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.