Court Opinion

ID: 9558673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:15:15.143592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:30.683971
License: Public Domain

COATS, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I have no quarrel with the application of the Hamilton rule in this case.1 However, I wish to repeat the position which I took in my concurring opinion in Hamilton:
I am not confident, however, that in every case where the defendant denies a material matter we should require the state either to call a witness to testify at the sentencing hearing or to prove the unavailability of a witness before using hearsay statements. I would prefer to resolve this issue on a case-by-case basis. It is important for the trial court to have as much reliable information as possible when sentencing a defendant. I am concerned that the rule which the court announces in this case may unduly restrict that information in other cases.[2]

. See Hamilton v. State, 771 P.2d 1358 (Alaska App.1989).

2. Id. at 1364.