In McDaniels v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that when determining if the government had good cause to deny a probationer’s right to confront adverse witnesses against him, courts should weigh the probationer’s interest in confrontation against the government’s good cause for denying it. At Norman McDaniels’ parole revocation hearing, a police officer testified that he had violated a protective order by contacting L.G., but L.G. did not testify at the hearing. The superior court revoked McDaniels’ probation. McDaniels appealed, arguing his due process right to confront adverse witnesses was violated. The State contended that the hearsay evidence was sufficiently reliable to satisfy McDaniels’ confrontation right. The court of appeals reversed, explaining that there is a due process right to confront adverse witnesses in a probation revocation hearing unless the government shows good cause to deny the right. The lower court erred in denying McDaniels’ confrontation right without making a specific good cause finding. Furthermore, the court adopted the balancing test used in federal courts to determine if there is good cause. Courts must weigh the probationer’s interest in confrontation, including the importance and reliability of the hearsay evidence, against the government’s explanation as to why the witness cannot testify. Vacating and remanding the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that when determining if there is good cause to deny a probationer’s due process right to confront adverse witnesses, courts should weigh a probationer’s interest in confrontation against the State’s reasoning for not calling the witness.
[1] 451 P.3d 403 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
