Court Opinion

ID: 9623129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:28:08.130357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:24.692351
License: Public Domain

*891RABINOWITZ, Justice,
with whom VAN HOOMISSEN, Superior Court Judge, joins, dissenting in part.
I am in agreement with the majority’s resolution of all questions in this appeal with the exception of the Flaghaug statement — harmless error issue. For I cannot say, with any degree of fair assurance, upon consideration of the whole record, that the jury’s verdict was not substantially swayed by virtue of the superior court’s admission of the Flathaug statement. Thus, I conclude that the admission of the Flathaug hearsay statement was prejudicial error under Love v. State.1
In my opinion there exists a fundamental difference between Flathaug’s written statement, which was excluded, and Bul-lard’s version of what Flathaug tpld him.2 Study of the two statements leads me to the conclusion that Flathaug’s written statement is consistent with Beech’s theory that the aircraft failed to develop sufficient air speed after lifting off while Bullard’s interpretation of what Flathaug told him is supportive of Bullard’s thesis that the cause of the crash was the inflight structural failure of the craft’s left wing.
Given the discrepancy between the Fla-thaug written statement and Bullard’s version of what Flathaug told him he observed, and the fact that only the latter version was made known to the jury, the error in admitting Bullard’s version has added significance. For my reading of the record discloses that Bullard’s version and interpretation of the Flathaug statement played a significant role in the shaping and furnishing of foundational support for • Bul-lard’s opinion as to the cause of the crash.
Thus, I would conclude that the matter must be remanded for a new trial.

. In adopting the test articulated by Justice Rutledge in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1567 (1946), we concluded in Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 632 (Alaska 1969), that “[w]e cannot fairly say that the experimental evidence did not appreciably affect the jury’s verdict against appellants.”
In Martinez v. Bullock, 535 P.2d 1200, 1206 (Alaska 1975), it was concluded that “. . . we will employ the Kotteakos principles in evaluating the importance of errors in civil cases.”

. The written statement in part contained the following description:
I was driving north on the road parallel to the air strip when I saw an aircraft take off the runway going north. What made me wonder is that I saw the left wing much higher than the right wing, it looked to me that the aircraft was making a right turn, the right wing was about 10-15 feet off the ground.
On the other hand Bullard testified that Fla-thaug told him
[t]hat it was left wing high, similar to a turn but the right wing was 10 or 15 feet off the ground . . .