Main Menu

State v. Estate of Powell

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Jordan Scott

In State v. Estate of Powell, 563 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that Alaska Criminal Rule 6(s)(1) governing admissibility of evidence before the grand jury permits the presentation of evidence if the requirements for admissibility at a future trial would be met, and does not require the prosecutor to actually establish all foundational requirements during the preliminary, ex parte grand jury stage. (Id. at 57). Powell was indicted based partly on video recording with child victims of sexual abuse presented to the grand jury. (Id. at 54–55). Powell argued the evidence was inadmissible because requirements of Evidence Rule 801(d)(3), specifically the victim’s availability for cross-examination and specific judicial findings, could not be met at the ex parte grand jury stage. (Id.). The superior court dismissed and the Court of Appeals of Alaska affirmed the dismissal, finding that foundation requirements specific to trial could not be met at the grand jury stage. (Id. at 55–56). Reversing the Court of Appeals of Alaska’s decision, the Supreme Court of Alaska reasoned that requiring procedural steps, such as judicial findings or cross-examination, to be completed at the preliminary, ex parte grand jury stage would be impossible and inconsistent with the function of the grand jury. (Id. at 63–64). The Court reasoned that the Rules of Evidence, such as Rule 801(d)(3), do not need to specifically address admissibility during grand jury proceedings because that function is performed by Alaska Criminal Rule 6(s). (Id. at 64). The Supreme Court of Alaska further reasoned that Alaska Criminal Rule 6(s) sets a conditional forward-looking standard that implicitly requires the prosecutor to make a good faith, reasonable judgment that the evidence would be admissible at the time of trial. (Id. at 57–59). This interpretation also aligns with the legislative goal of avoiding repeated traumatization of child victims by forcing them to testify multiple times. (Id. at 64–67).

State v. Estate of Powell

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Jordan Scott

In State v. Estate of Powell, 563 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that Alaska Criminal Rule 6(s)(1) governing admissibility of evidence before the grand jury permits the presentation of evidence if the requirements for admissibility at a future trial would be met, and does not require the prosecutor to actually establish all foundational requirements during the preliminary, ex parte grand jury stage. (Id. at 57). Powell was indicted based partly on video recording with child victims of sexual abuse presented to the grand jury. (Id. at 54–55). Powell argued the evidence was inadmissible because requirements of Evidence Rule 801(d)(3), specifically the victim’s availability for cross-examination and specific judicial findings, could not be met at the ex parte grand jury stage. (Id.). The superior court dismissed and the Court of Appeals of Alaska affirmed the dismissal, finding that foundation requirements specific to trial could not be met at the grand jury stage. (Id. at 55–56). Reversing the Court of Appeals of Alaska’s decision, the Supreme Court of Alaska reasoned that requiring procedural steps, such as judicial findings or cross-examination, to be completed at the preliminary, ex parte grand jury stage would be impossible and inconsistent with the function of the grand jury. (Id. at 63–64). The Court reasoned that the Rules of Evidence, such as Rule 801(d)(3), do not need to specifically address admissibility during grand jury proceedings because that function is performed by Alaska Criminal Rule 6(s). (Id. at 64). The Supreme Court of Alaska further reasoned that Alaska Criminal Rule 6(s) sets a conditional forward-looking standard that implicitly requires the prosecutor to make a good faith, reasonable judgment that the evidence would be admissible at the time of trial. (Id. at 57–59). This interpretation also aligns with the legislative goal of avoiding repeated traumatization of child victims by forcing them to testify multiple times. (Id. at 64–67).