Court Opinion

ID: 9613960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:21:21.653974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:56.988595
License: Public Domain

*630CONNOR, Justice,
with whom MATTHEWS, Justice, joins, dissenting in part, concurring in part.
I must respectfully dissent.
I do not agree that the prosecution’s failure to comply with Criminal Rule 16 was harmless error as to the rape charge involving the victim V. H. The impeachment of Stevens’ witnesses as to his alibi on the T. F. charge might well be taken by the jury to demonstrate that Stevens was a liar and therefore to be disbelieved as to the V. H. charge. Further, Mrs. Stevens was the primary alibi witness on the V. H. charge. Her impeachment with the withheld statement concerning the T. F. case obviously could have affected the jury’s perception of her testimony as to the V. H. charge. In my view the government’s failure to turn over the relevant material tainted both verdicts or at least would substantially affect those verdicts. Under Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 632 (Alaska 1969), I cannot conclude that this was harmless error.
With the balance of the majority opinion I agree.