Opinion ID: 1120118
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: out-of-court statements made by howe

Text: In support of his insanity defense, Howe attempted to introduce certain statements made to police officers and to psychiatrist Dr. Wolf, who testified for the defense. In his brief and during extensive argument at trial, Howe maintained that these statements should have come in as substantive evidence of their truth. The state, on the other hand, took the position that the statements could be offered to show the basis for an expert's opinion of Howe's mental condition at the time of the robbery, but not as substantive evidence of their truth. The trial judge finally ruled that the statements could only come in to show the basis for an expert's opinion, and that they did not qualify under any existing hearsay exception. The defense objected to the ruling both on the grounds that the statements should be allowed under a hearsay exception and that the judge's ruling would force Howe to take the stand in his own defense. The question of whether the statements may be admitted into evidence and for what purpose is now controlled by the Alaska Rules of Evidence, which were adopted subsequent to Howe's trial. [13] On retrial, if the same issues arise, the trial court should be guided by Evidence Rule 803, which provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ..... (4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. [14] It is also necessary to consider the admissibility of statements made by Howe to police officers on the night of the arrest. Transcripts of these interviews were made available to Dr. Wolf, who relied upon them in evaluating Howe. Although neither the state nor the defense draw any distinction between statements made to the police and statements made to Dr. Wolf, [15] Howe's statements to the police were certainly not made for medical diagnosis or treatment within the meaning of Rule 803(4); therefore, they are not admissible under this exception. Again, the trial court should be guided by the new rules of evidence if issues concerning statements made to the police arise on retrial. [16] In view of the necessity of reversing and remanding, we find it unnecessary to rule on the other contentions raised in this appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED. [17]