CRIMINAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
Elza Bouhassira
In State v. Graham, 513 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a drunk driver’s
sentence should be vacated because the court failed to preview and edit tribute videos before
playing them at the sentencing hearing. (Id. at 1071). A drunk driver lost control of his truck and
killed two teenage girls who were walking on the sidewalk. (Id. at 1051). The driver pleaded guilty
to two counts of second–degree murder, and at the sentencing hearing the girls’ families were
allowed to show tribute videos for the victims. (Id. at 1050). The driver had a family, steady job,
and a negligible criminal history at the time of the accident. (Id. at 1051). The driver was sentenced
to a total of 32 years in prison, the highest sentence imposed in Alaska for an unintentional
vehicular homicide. (Id. at 1050). The supreme court set out several factors that should be
considered in whether tribute videos should be admitted as evidence and stated that there is no
bright–line rule for admissibility of victim tribute evidence. (Id. at 1066). A video cannot be so
prejudicial that the trial becomes fundamentally unfair. (Id.). Short, unedited videos of the victim
near the time of loss tend to be admissible while heavy edits, dramatization, enhanced sound, visual
effects, or a failure to focus on the victim at the time of the loss weigh against admissibility. (Id.
at 1067). Further, the trial court must review video evidence before it is shown at trial so the court
can exclude irrelevant, cumulative, or overly prejudicial content. (Id. at 1069). The supreme court
assumed that judges who review potentially prejudicial material well before a public proceeding
will be better able to compartmentalize their emotional response than if they see it for the first time
in open court. (Id. at 1070). Holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the tribute videos
without viewing them beforehand, the supreme court vacated the drunk driver’s sentence and
instructed the sentencing judge on remand to consider the factors it laid out. (Id. at 1070–71).
