Main Menu

Compton v. State

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sasha Kahn

In Compton v. State, 485 P.3d 56 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that a trial judge’s ruling that parties could not play recordings of conversations for the jury unless the witness who made the statement denied having made that statement was in violation Rule 613(b) of the Alaska Rules of Evidence. (Id. at 62–63). However, the error must still have “appreciably affected” the jury’s verdict to require reversal on appeal. (Id. at 63). After an altercation between a man and a pregnant woman with whom he and his wife were romantically involved resulted in several injuries to the pregnant woman’s head, she was interviewed by a police officer. (Id. at 59). At trial for two fourth-degree assault charges, the woman struggled to remember several key facts from the conversation. (Id.). The man’s attorney sought to introduce four recorded statements to impeach the woman’s credibility, but the trial judge stated that this was only possible if she denied the statements; if she simply could not remember them, the recordings could only permissibly be played to her without the jury present in order to refresh her memory. (Id.). While noting that two of the statements did not implicate Rule 613(b), the court of appeals held that the other two did, and therefore the trial court erred in the way it imposed evidence rules. (Id. at 61–63). However, the court of appeals nonetheless rejected the man’s claims on both constitutional and evidentiary grounds, stating that because his attorney was still able to use the woman’s inconsistency to impeach her before the jury without the use of the recordings, the error was harmless. (Id. at 63–64). Therefore, even if an error has occurred, the error must still have “appreciably affected” the jury’s verdict to require reversal on appeal. (Id. at 63).

Compton v. State

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sasha Kahn

In Compton v. State, 485 P.3d 56 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that a trial judge’s ruling that parties could not play recordings of conversations for the jury unless the witness who made the statement denied having made that statement was in violation Rule 613(b) of the Alaska Rules of Evidence. (Id. at 62–63). However, the error must still have “appreciably affected” the jury’s verdict to require reversal on appeal. (Id. at 63). After an altercation between a man and a pregnant woman with whom he and his wife were romantically involved resulted in several injuries to the pregnant woman’s head, she was interviewed by a police officer. (Id. at 59). At trial for two fourth-degree assault charges, the woman struggled to remember several key facts from the conversation. (Id.). The man’s attorney sought to introduce four recorded statements to impeach the woman’s credibility, but the trial judge stated that this was only possible if she denied the statements; if she simply could not remember them, the recordings could only permissibly be played to her without the jury present in order to refresh her memory. (Id.). While noting that two of the statements did not implicate Rule 613(b), the court of appeals held that the other two did, and therefore the trial court erred in the way it imposed evidence rules. (Id. at 61–63). However, the court of appeals nonetheless rejected the man’s claims on both constitutional and evidentiary grounds, stating that because his attorney was still able to use the woman’s inconsistency to impeach her before the jury without the use of the recordings, the error was harmless. (Id. at 63–64). Therefore, even if an error has occurred, the error must still have “appreciably affected” the jury’s verdict to require reversal on appeal. (Id. at 63).