Gomez v. State

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)

Alex Bartlow

In Gomez v. State, 516 P.3d 879 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that (1) statements made by a victim during the initial portion of a 911 call were not testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial did not violate defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights, (2) statements made by the victim to an officer who arrived on scene were testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial violated defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, and (3) the admission of the victim’s statements to the officer who arrived on scene was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 880). After Gomez removed portions of a victim’s clothing and held a knife to the victim’s neck in Gomez’s apartment, the victim was able to escape to another apartment and called 911. (Id. at 881). Several police officers arrived at the scene and went to the Gomez’s apartment. (Id.). Another police officer arrived on the scene a short time later, went to the apartment where the victim had retreated, and interviewed the victim. (Id.). The victim did not testify at trial; however, the trial court allowed the State to introduce recordings of victim’s prior statements. (Id. at 880). The first recording introduced at trial was the initial portion of the victim’s 911 call, and the second recording was a portion of the victim’s interview with the police officer. (Id.). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree sexual assault. (Id.). While holding that the introduction of the 911 call at trial was allowed, the court of appeals held that the introduction of the victim’s interview with police violated the defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights because the interview was testimonial in nature, the victim did not testify at trial, and the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim. (Id. at 886–88). The court of appeals reasoned that the statements made in the interview recording were testimonial because the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886). Reversing defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial, the court of appeals held that (1) statements made by a victim during the initial portion of a 911 call were not testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial did not violate defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights, (2) statements made by the victim to an officer who arrived on scene were testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial violated defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, and (3) the admission of the victim’s statements to the officer who arrived on scene was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 880).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)

Alex Bartlow

 

Gomez v. State

In Gomez v. State, 516 P.3d 879 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that allowing the introduction at trial of a police officer’s interview with a victim violates a defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights if the victim does not testify at trial, the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim, and the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886–88). After defendant removed portions of victim’s clothing and held a knife to victim’s neck in defendant’s apartment, the victim was able to escape to another apartment and called 911. (Id. at 881). Several police officers arrived at the scene and went to the defendant’s apartment. (Id.). Another police officer arrived on the scene a short time later and proceeded to the apartment where the victim had retreated. (Id.). The police officer then interviewed the victim to determine what events had transpired that evening. (Id.). The victim did not testify at trial, however, the trial court allowed the State to introduce at trial recordings of victim’s prior statements. (Id. at 880). The first recording allowed to be introduced at trial was the initial portion of the victim’s 911 call. (Id.). The second recording allowed to be introduced at trial was a portion of the victim’s interview with the police officer. (Id.). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree sexual assault. (Id.). While holding that the introduction of the 911 call at trial was permissible, the court of appeals held that the introduction at trial of the victim’s interview with police violated the defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights because the interview was testimonial in nature, the victim did not testify at trial, and the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim. (Id. at 886–88). The court of appeals reasoned that the statements made in the interview recording were testimonial because the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886). Reversing defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial, the court of appeals held that allowing the introduction at trial of a police officer’s interview with a victim violates a defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights if the victim does not testify at trial, the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim, and the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886–88).

 

 

 

 

 

Gomez v. State

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)

Alex Bartlow

In Gomez v. State, 516 P.3d 879 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that (1) statements made by a victim during the initial portion of a 911 call were not testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial did not violate defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights, (2) statements made by the victim to an officer who arrived on scene were testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial violated defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, and (3) the admission of the victim’s statements to the officer who arrived on scene was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 880). After Gomez removed portions of a victim’s clothing and held a knife to the victim’s neck in Gomez’s apartment, the victim was able to escape to another apartment and called 911. (Id. at 881). Several police officers arrived at the scene and went to the Gomez’s apartment. (Id.). Another police officer arrived on the scene a short time later, went to the apartment where the victim had retreated, and interviewed the victim. (Id.). The victim did not testify at trial; however, the trial court allowed the State to introduce recordings of victim’s prior statements. (Id. at 880). The first recording introduced at trial was the initial portion of the victim’s 911 call, and the second recording was a portion of the victim’s interview with the police officer. (Id.). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree sexual assault. (Id.). While holding that the introduction of the 911 call at trial was allowed, the court of appeals held that the introduction of the victim’s interview with police violated the defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights because the interview was testimonial in nature, the victim did not testify at trial, and the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim. (Id. at 886–88). The court of appeals reasoned that the statements made in the interview recording were testimonial because the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886). Reversing defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial, the court of appeals held that (1) statements made by a victim during the initial portion of a 911 call were not testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial did not violate defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights, (2) statements made by the victim to an officer who arrived on scene were testimonial in nature, so their admission at trial violated defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, and (3) the admission of the victim’s statements to the officer who arrived on scene was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 880).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)

Alex Bartlow

 

Gomez v. State

In Gomez v. State, 516 P.3d 879 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that allowing the introduction at trial of a police officer’s interview with a victim violates a defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights if the victim does not testify at trial, the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim, and the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886–88). After defendant removed portions of victim’s clothing and held a knife to victim’s neck in defendant’s apartment, the victim was able to escape to another apartment and called 911. (Id. at 881). Several police officers arrived at the scene and went to the defendant’s apartment. (Id.). Another police officer arrived on the scene a short time later and proceeded to the apartment where the victim had retreated. (Id.). The police officer then interviewed the victim to determine what events had transpired that evening. (Id.). The victim did not testify at trial, however, the trial court allowed the State to introduce at trial recordings of victim’s prior statements. (Id. at 880). The first recording allowed to be introduced at trial was the initial portion of the victim’s 911 call. (Id.). The second recording allowed to be introduced at trial was a portion of the victim’s interview with the police officer. (Id.). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree sexual assault. (Id.). While holding that the introduction of the 911 call at trial was permissible, the court of appeals held that the introduction at trial of the victim’s interview with police violated the defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights because the interview was testimonial in nature, the victim did not testify at trial, and the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim. (Id. at 886–88). The court of appeals reasoned that the statements made in the interview recording were testimonial because the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886). Reversing defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial, the court of appeals held that allowing the introduction at trial of a police officer’s interview with a victim violates a defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights if the victim does not testify at trial, the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim, and the primary purpose of the interview was to establish past events, not to resolve an ongoing emergency. (Id. at 886–88).