Opinion ID: 1218272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: challenge to the indictment

Text: Adams maintains that hearsay testimony was improperly presented to the grand jury that indicted him and that such testimony should invalidate the indictment. We agree. Adams brings to our attention two instances where Officer Eugene Parmeter testified to the grand jury about statements made to him by out-of-court declarants. Specifically, Officer Parmeter repeated statements made by Dr. Alex Dubelman, who treated the victim on his admission to the hospital, regarding the nature of the injury, its possible cause, the condition of the victim, and his prognosis for recovery. Officer Parmeter also related statements made to him shortly before his grand jury appearance by an unidentified hospital spokesperson about the victim's condition at that time and his limited chances for survival. On February 9, 1976, Adams made a timely motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that critical portions of the testimony before the grand jury were hearsay presented without compelling justification. The motion was denied. In Alaska, hearsay testimony which is not subject to a recognized exception to the hearsay rule may be presented to the grand jury only upon a showing of compelling justification. Rule 6(r), Alaska R.Crim.P. [4] We have held that, for purposes of interpreting Rule 6(r), compelling is to be equated with necessity. State v. Gieffels, 554 P.2d 460, 464-65 (Alaska 1976). We have found necessity where a witness is unavoidably absent from the jurisdiction. State v. Johnson, 525 P.2d 532, 536 (Alaska 1974). See Gieffels, 554 P.2d at 464; McKinnon v. State, 526 P.2d 18, 27 (Alaska 1974). We have also found necessity where a witness could not testify without violating the privilege against self-incrimination. Galauska v. State, 527 P.2d 459, 465 (Alaska 1974). On the other hand, we have found no necessity where the cost of transporting a witness was the reason advanced for using the hearsay. Gieffels, 554 P.2d at 464-65. The reasons offered in this case, however, are inadequate to justify the use of hearsay. After the absent doctor's statement was presented, the district attorney gave as justification for the hearsay the prohibitive expense of bringing the doctor before the grand jury. This is clearly inadequate under our holding in Gieffels. Moreover, the transcript of the grand jury proceeding reveals that the district attorney gave no justification for the absence of the hospital spokesperson. The admission of hearsay testimony, therefore, was improper in both instances. The improper introduction of hearsay testimony will invalidate an indictment unless there is evidence, standing alone and uncontroverted, that would justify a conviction. Webb v. State, 527 P.2d 35, 36 (Alaska 1974); McKinnon, 526 P.2d at 27. To justify Adams' conviction for mayhem, the state would have to present evidence on each of the elements in the prima facie case. The state must prove (1) that Adams had a malicious intent to maim or disfigure the victim; (2) that he used a dangerous instrument; [5] and (3) that permanent injury or disfigurement resulted. [6] If the state presented admissible evidence of each of these elements to the grand jury, the improper introduction of hearsay would be harmless. The state did present other admissible evidence to the grand jury that was sufficient to show two of the elements, the requisite malicious intent to maim by the requisite means of a dangerous instrument. [7] The only evidence of permanent disablement or injury, however, was that contained in the inadmissible hearsay testimony. Because the evidence standing alone would not justify a conviction, the grand jury did not have enough evidence before it to indict Adams of mayhem. Thus, the indictment was invalid.