In State v. Cole,[1] the court of appeals held the superior court did not err in allowing the introduction of a videotaped statement under Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(3). A 12 year old girl (“LP”) alleged she was sexually abused by Cole on two occasions. LP gave a videotaped statement describing the abuse to the police. At trial, Cole argued the videotaped statement was inadmissible hearsay as the foundational requirements under Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(3) were not met. Specifically, Cole argued the State failed to identify each person participating in the taking of the statement as required by Rule 801(d)(3)(E) because the observers in the adjoining room were not identified. The Court of Appeals emphasized the legislative rationale for the hearsay exception as providing child victims a safe venue to testify. They also stressed that while the observers were not identified on the tape, their names were identified on the front page of the transcript given to the defense. The court of appeals held the State had not violated Rule 801(d)(3) by not identifying the observers on the tape, and consequently, the superior court did not err in allowing its introduction.
[1] 452 P.3d 704 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
