CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Mike Galane
In Rice v. State, 563 P.3d 132 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that the Sixth Amendment provides no exception to admit unconfronted testimonial hearsay even if the judge determines admission of the hearsay might be reasonably necessary to correct a misleading impression. (Id. at 135). At the trial court, a jury convicted Rice of third-degree weapons misconduct for possessing a concealable firearm as a felon. (Id. at 133). During the investigation, Friendsuh, Rice’s wife, provided statements that corroborated Rice’s possession of a firearm. (Id.). Friendsuh was unavailable to testify at trial. (Id.). On re-direct examination, the state introduced Friendsuh’s statement, arguing that the defense had “opened the door” to their admission by referencing the statements during cross-examination. (Id. at 134). Over Confrontation Clause and Sixth Amendment concerns, the trial court admitted the hearsay. (Id.). The trial court reasoned that a party “opens the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence if the party’s presentation creates a misleading impression that requires correction with the inadmissible evidence. (Id.). The Court of Appeals of Alaska reversed. (Id. at 155). The court reasoned that the principle of “opening the door” is incompatible with the Confrontation Clause. (Id. at 134). The Confrontation Clause’s text clearly requires that the truthfulness of evidence be tested by cross-examination, not by a trial court. (Id.). Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that the Sixth Amendment provides no exception to admit unconfronted testimonial hearsay even if the judge determines admission of the hearsay might be reasonably necessary to correct a misleading impression. (Id. at 135).
