Opinion ID: 3133191
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion in limine to admit Bacod’s statement

Text: In February 2009 Sanders filed a motion in limine to admit Bacod’s statement at trial. Sanders argued for admission based upon his due process right to present a defense and Alaska Rules of Evidence 803(3) (the state of mind exception to 3 According to the transcript, Bacod and Detective Huelskoetter were talking over one another during this exchange. -6- 7058 hearsay) and 804(b)(3) (the exception for statements against an unavailable declarant’s interest) for Richards’s statement to Bacod, and 804(b)(5) (the unavailable declarant residual hearsay exception) for Bacod’s statement to Detective Huelskoetter. The superior court denied Sanders’s motion, stating that “Ms. Richards’[s] statements to Ms. Bacod regarding her intention to go to the Defendant’s residence with Mr. Moore are not admissible under Rule 803(3) as circumstantial evidence that either Ms. Richards [or] Mr. Moore planned to rob and assault the D efendant.” The superior court stated its understanding of the specifics of Richards’s statement: There is no evidence Ms. Richards actually stated she or Mr. Moore planned to assault and rob the Defendant. In the recorded statement, Ms. Bacod extrapolates the inevitability of violence from Ms. Richards’[s] statements. . . . As earlier noted, Ms. Bacod states that Ms. Richards told them they were going over to the Defendant’s residence to talk. Ms. Bacod added that there would likely be violence, but she does not state that Ms. Richards affirmatively stated their intention was to rob or assault the Defendant. Regarding the applicability of Rule 804(b)(5) to Bacod’s statement, the superior court stated that “[t]he trustworthiness of the statement may not be established by corroborating evidence” — citing Ryan v. State,4 which in turn cited the United States Supreme Court case Idaho v. Wright5 — and therefore did not consider any extrinsic corroborating evidence. The superior court stated its understanding of the specifics of Bacod’s statement: The relationship between Ms. Bacod, the Defendant, and the shooting victims in this case is essentially unknown. It is clear that all four parties were in the same social circle, but the only evidence of their relationships to one another is 4 899 P.2d 1371, 1375 (Alaska App. 1995). 5 497 U.S. 805, 822-24 (1990). -7­ 7058 contained in the recording itself. . . . The lack of evidence in this respect does not indicate any motivation for Ms. Bacod to lie in the Defendant’s favor, but neither does it explain her motivation for calling the police to speak against her fallen friends.[6] While it is true Ms. Bacod made her statement to a government agent, Ms. Bacod was not under oath and there were no subsequent interviews where Detective Huelskoetter or any other government agent could cross-examine Ms. Bacod regarding her statements or otherwise test her knowledge and veracity. The Detective merely took Ms. Bacod’s statements and indicated he might contact her again. Ms. Bacod gave her statement telephonically and there is no way to tell where she was or who else was in the room when she made the call. The statements simply are not “so trustworthy that adversarial testing would add little to its reliability.”21 _______________________________________________ 21 Ryan, 899 P.2d at 1375 (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. at 821); see also Vaska v. State, 135 P.3d 1011, 1020 (Alaska 2006).