Edward Leslie Stores, Appellant v. State of Alaska, Appellee (Alaska 1980)

Summary

The court held that the prosecution could not use a videotaped deposition at trial because it failed to subpoena or otherwise diligently seek the presence of a witness whose location and willingness to comply with a subpoena were known. The violation of the criminal deposition rule was not harmless because the witness provided crucial evidence on consent and the videotaped presentation materially affected the jury's ability to assess her testimony. Justice Matthews, dissenting, would have affirmed because the videotape preserved the witness's demeanor and the defense had a full opportunity to cross-examine her.

Holding

Witness unavailability and reasonable diligence. The prosecution failed to establish that Dr. Sydnam was unavailable because it made no effort to subpoena her, even though her location and willingness to appear if subpoenaed were known. The videotaped deposition was therefore inadmissible under the criminal deposition rule.

Relaxation of the criminal procedure rules. The trial court could not properly relax the deposition and live-testimony requirements in this case. Relaxation would have undermined procedural rights and would not have advanced justice, so permitting the deposition would have been an abuse of discretion.

Harmlessness of the evidentiary error. Admission of the videotaped deposition was not harmless and required reversal. Dr. Sydnam's testimony was central to the disputed issue of consent, and the videotaped format could affect the jury's assessment of her demeanor, credibility, and possible bias.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities