Opinion ID: 2612942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidentiary Showing of Unavailability Required

Text: Medina first argues that, in relying on avowals alone, the state failed to satisfy its evidentiary burden of proving Casanova's unavailability. [6] To satisfy its burden of proving good faith efforts under Roberts, 448 U.S. at 74-75, 100 S.Ct. at 2543, the state should make an actual showing through competent evidence, sufficient to convince the court that the witness in fact cannot be produced. State v. Alexander, 108 Ariz. 556, 562, 503 P.2d 777, 783 (1972). We agree that the state failed to meet this burden. Aside from her unsworn avowals, the prosecutor offered to file one handwritten note for the record. We recognize that in deciding questions of admissibility under Rule 104(a), Ariz.R.Evid., the trial court is not bound by the rules of evidence, and thus the prosecutor's avowals were properly considered. Nevertheless, the trial court should have required more. Affidavits or testimony from sheriff's deputies and federal authorities in Texas would have been helpful. Vigorous examination of the prosecutor by the judge about her use of all available processes, state and federal, would have helped. None of this was done. The prosecutor's assertions were insufficient to satisfy the burden articulated in Alexander.