Court Opinion

ID: 9850277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:54:25.077682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:34.327279
License: Public Domain

SINGLETON, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s decision affirming the conviction of Ella Watts and reversing the conviction of Gary Sluka. With regard to Sluka, I am satisfied that his case presents a situation in which the confrontation clause of the state and federal constitutions1 requires a showing that A.W. was unavailable, as a prerequisite to the admissibility of her out-of-court statements.2 I am also satisfied that Sluka’s objections sufficiently focused the trial court’s attention on the issue of unavailability to preserve that issue for consideration in this court. Since the state made no effort to show that A.W. was unavailable, we must reverse. It is unnecessary, in my view, to discuss the hearsay exceptions which would be relevant if A.W. were properly found unavailable.

. U.S. Const, amend. VI; Alaska Const, art. t, § 11.

. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2538, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 607 (1980). Cf. Stores v. State, 625 P.2d 820, 822-24 (Alaska 1980) (discussing confrontation clause but deciding case on alternate ground).