Court Opinion

ID: 9848362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:17:58.796054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:15.486909
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice
(dissenting in part).
In the event this court finds any of the legal points raised by counsel on behalf of the indigent are “arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous),” then under Anders v. State of California1 we must, prior to decision, “afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.” In my opinion, appellant’s second point concerning the extent of the cross-examination of witnesses Wagner and Thomas is arguable on its merits. It follows that appellant should have been afforded the assistance of counsel to argue this question prior to this court’s decision thereon.
In Smith v. State 2 we said:
To be admissible evidence must be relevant, and to be relevant it must tend to establish a material proposition. The cross-examination of Thomas and Wagner tested and amplified their testimony on direct examination, that they and appellant were engaged together as partners in a business enterprise, viz., operating a recreation, and card game room. This was material, not because of the type of operation engaged in, but because these men were engaged in a business enterprise as partners. From this fact a jury, in judging the credibility of the witnesses, could believe that Thomas and Wagner would have friendly feelings for appellant, and because of such feelings would be inclined to slant their testimony in appellant’s favor. The possible existence of such partiality, flowing from the business relationship .of appellant and the two’ witnesses, may be shown by evidence in order to establish bias and thus impeach the witnesses’ credibility.
Unlike co-defendant Smith, there was no evidence in the record indicating that appellant McCracken was a business partner of the witnesses Thomas and Wagner in the operation of a recreation-card game room. In fact, the record is devoid of any reference to any' business association between appellant McCracken and the two witnesses. Once the “bias,” “interest” underpinning of the Smith decision is removed concerning prosecution’s cross-examination of Thomas and Wagner, then in my view an issue, arguable on its merits, is presented.
I concur in the court’s disposition of the two remaining points in this appeal.

. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 498 (1967).

. 431 P.2d 507, 509 (Alaska 1967) (footnotes omitted).