Sanders v. State

[EVIDENCE LAW]

In Sanders v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the lower court improperly excluded evidence on a phone recording given by an unavailable declarant where the recording met the basic circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.[2] On trial for murder, Sanders sought to admit a recording of a phone call to the police placed by a woman who died prior to trial and was thus not available for testimony.[3] On the recording, the woman told the officer of her personal knowledge that the two victims shot by Sanders had been conspiring to assault and rob him.[4] The trial court excluded the recording on the grounds that there was no guarantee of trustworthiness.[5] Sanders was then convicted of murder on all counts.[6] The court of appeals affirmed the exclusion of the recording and found it did not unfairly limit Sanders’ defense.[7] On appeal, Sanders contended the exclusion was reversible error and that the recording was admissible under Alaska Rules of Evidence 803(3) and 804(b)(5).[8] The supreme court reasoned that the lower courts misinterpreted the woman’s statements on the recording.[9] In doing so, the lower courts had also subjected the recording to an overly demanding test for trustworthiness given the later death of the declarant.[10] The court then found that the woman had met at least five factors arguing in favor of her trustworthiness.[11] She exhibited no reason to speak insincerely given her relationship to the parties and spontaneously sought out the detective in his capacity as the principal investigator.[12] She also would have known false statements would lead to liability and knew she was being recorded.[13] Finally, she demonstrated clear first-hand knowledge of the circumstances that could be corroborated.[14] The supreme court, reviewing de novo, found the recording met the basic circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.[15]

[1] 2015 WL 5917057 (Alaska Oct. 9, 2015).

[2] Id. at *1.

[3] Id. at *3

[4] Id. at *2.

[5] Id. at *4.

[6] Id. at *5.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at *6.

[9] Id. at *8.

[10] Id. at *10.

[11] Id. at *13.

[12] Id. at *13–14.

[13] Id. at *14–15.

[14] Id. at *15.

[15] Id. at *15.

Sanders v. State

[EVIDENCE LAW]

In Sanders v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the lower court improperly excluded evidence on a phone recording given by an unavailable declarant where the recording met the basic circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.[2] On trial for murder, Sanders sought to admit a recording of a phone call to the police placed by a woman who died prior to trial and was thus not available for testimony.[3] On the recording, the woman told the officer of her personal knowledge that the two victims shot by Sanders had been conspiring to assault and rob him.[4] The trial court excluded the recording on the grounds that there was no guarantee of trustworthiness.[5] Sanders was then convicted of murder on all counts.[6] The court of appeals affirmed the exclusion of the recording and found it did not unfairly limit Sanders’ defense.[7] On appeal, Sanders contended the exclusion was reversible error and that the recording was admissible under Alaska Rules of Evidence 803(3) and 804(b)(5).[8] The supreme court reasoned that the lower courts misinterpreted the woman’s statements on the recording.[9] In doing so, the lower courts had also subjected the recording to an overly demanding test for trustworthiness given the later death of the declarant.[10] The court then found that the woman had met at least five factors arguing in favor of her trustworthiness.[11] She exhibited no reason to speak insincerely given her relationship to the parties and spontaneously sought out the detective in his capacity as the principal investigator.[12] She also would have known false statements would lead to liability and knew she was being recorded.[13] Finally, she demonstrated clear first-hand knowledge of the circumstances that could be corroborated.[14] The supreme court, reviewing de novo, found the recording met the basic circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.[15]

[1] 2015 WL 5917057 (Alaska Oct. 9, 2015).

[2] Id. at *1.

[3] Id. at *3

[4] Id. at *2.

[5] Id. at *4.

[6] Id. at *5.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at *6.

[9] Id. at *8.

[10] Id. at *10.

[11] Id. at *13.

[12] Id. at *13–14.

[13] Id. at *14–15.

[14] Id. at *15.

[15] Id. at *15.