hearsay rule in Alaska

2025See Premera Blue Cross, 171 P.3d at 1119 (considering “the schedules, forms, and instructions” agency used when reviewing agency interpretation of statute). 68 See Dobos v. Ingersoll, 9 P.3d 1020, 1027 (Alaska 2000) (“[M]edical records, including doctors’ chart notes, opinions, and diagnoses, fall squarely within the business records exception to the hearsay rule.”); Liimatta v. Vest, 45 P.3d 310, 318 (Alaska 2002) (“Medical records kept by hospitals and doctors are often admitted under the business records exception.”). -25- 7785 would likely not be admissible over a hearsay objection.69 Yet

2023Evid. 802. 12 Davison v. State, 282 P.3d 1262, 1266 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Sluka v. State, 717 P.2d 394, 399 (Alaska App. 1986)). 13 Dobos v. Ingersoll, 9 P.3d 1020, 1024 (Alaska 2000). -9- 1968 R.M. argues that the superior court should not have allowed Dr. Pauli to describe the two incidents of violent behavior that were relayed to him by other members of API’s staff because “[t]here is no evidence in the record” that these reports “were made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.” R.M. argues that because the State “did not lay a proper foundation for the testimony to be admissible

1976The trial judge admitted it, under an exception to the hearsay rule, as an “excited utterance.” Cf. Watson v. State, 387 P.2d 289, 291 (Alaska 1963).

1976The trial judge admitted it, under an exception to the hearsay rule, as an "excited utterance." Cf. Watson v. State, 387 P.2d 289, 291 (Alaska 1963).

2005AS 11.41.436(a)(1) and AS 11.31.100(a)(1). .AS 11.41.445(b). .State v. Agoney, 608 P.2d 762, 764 (Alaska 1980) (a defendant's self-serving statements are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence unless they qualify under some exception to the hearsay rule or are used for a non-hearsay purpose); Marino v. State, 934 P.2d 1321, 1331 (Alaska App.1997); Stumpf v. State, 749 P.2d 880, 899 (Alaska App.1988). .

2005NOTES [1] AS 11.41.438(a)(1). [2] AS 11.41.436(a)(1) and AS 11.31.100(a)(1). [3] AS 11.41.445(b). [4] State v. Agoney, 608 P.2d 762, 764 (Alaska 1980) (a defendant's self-serving statements are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence unless they qualify under some exception to the hearsay rule or are used for a non-hearsay purpose); Marino v. State, 934 P.2d 1321, 1331 (Alaska App.1997); Stumpf v. State, 749 P.2d 880, 899 (Alaska App.1988). [5] Alaska Evidence Rule 802; Agoney, 608 P.2d at 764 . [6] Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109, 113 (Alaska 1999). [7] See Stephen A. Saltzburg, Michael M.

2023Under AS 11.41.470(2), “incapacitated” is defined as “temporarily incapable of appraising the nature of one’s own conduct or physically unable to express unwillingness to act[.]” 6 The State sought to introduce Steven’s statements under Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(2), which provides that a party’s own statement, when offered against that party, is not hearsay. 7 See State v. Agoney, 608 P.2d 762, 764 (Alaska 1980) (holding that statements made by the defendant during a custodial interrogation over an hour after his arrest were hearsay and did not fall within the excited utterance exception to

2005NOTES [1] AS 11.41.438(a)(1). [2] AS 11.41.436(a)(1) and AS 11.31.100(a)(1). [3] AS 11.41.445(b). [4] State v. Agoney, 608 P.2d 762, 764 (Alaska 1980) (a defendant's self-serving statements are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence unless they qualify under some exception to the hearsay rule or are used for a non-hearsay purpose); Marino v. State, 934 P.2d 1321, 1331 (Alaska App.1997); Stumpf v. State, 749 P.2d 880, 899 (Alaska App.1988). [5] Alaska Evidence Rule 802; Agoney, 608 P.2d at 764 . [6] Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109, 113 (Alaska 1999). [7] See Stephen A. Saltzburg, Michael M.

2011Similarly, in Lipscomb v. State, 700 P.2d 1298, 1304-05 (Alaska App.1985), this Court rejected a robbery defendant's argument that the hearsay rule barred admission of the assertions of fact contained in questions posed by a police detective who interviewed the defendant.

1985In Lipscomb v. State, 700 P.2d 1298, 1305-1308 (Alaska App.1985) we discussed admission of evidence under Evidence Rule 803(2): A trial court's determination that a statement falls within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule necessarily depends on the facts peculiar to each case and should not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. 700 P.2d at 1306 .

1986As noted in California v. Green, 399 U.S. at 155-56 , 90 S.Ct. 1933 -34, 26 L.Ed.2d at 495-96 , in some situations, evidence may violate the hearsay rule without violating the confrontation clause.

1986As noted in California v. Green, 399 U.S. at 155-56 , 90 S.Ct. 1933 -34, 26 L.Ed.2d at 495-96 , in some situations, evidence may violate the hearsay rule without violating the confrontation clause.

2025Court of appeals precedent also supports our interpretation of Criminal Rule 6(s). 53 In State v. Nollner, for example, a child victim of sexual assault identified the defendant to an examining physician.54 The case law regarding whether such a statement could fall within the hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment was evolving at the time; the court of appeals held that the authority “in favor of admitting [such] statements . . . [was] sufficiently strong” to justify the prosecution’s decision to present the statements to the grand jury.55 In light

2025Court of appeals precedent also supports our interpretation of Criminal Rule 6(s). 53 In State v. Nollner, for example, a child victim of sexual assault identified the defendant to an examining physician.54 The case law regarding whether such a statement could fall within the hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment was evolving at the time; the court of appeals held that the authority “in favor of admitting [such] statements . . . [was] sufficiently strong” to justify the prosecution’s decision to present the statements to the grand jury.55 In light

2025Ballard sought to introduce these records through the police officer who administered the breath test, but the officer disclaimed knowledge of the testing instrument’s maintenance history, and the court ruled that the officer was not the proper 1 AS 28.35.030(a)(2). 2 State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613, 615-17 (Alaska App. 1982). 3 Id. at 617-19 . 4 Ballard also argues that the DataMaster printout containing the test result was inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2025Ballard sought to introduce these records through the police officer who administered the breath test, but the officer disclaimed knowledge of the testing instrument’s maintenance history, and the court ruled that the officer was not the proper 1 AS 28.35.030(a)(2). 2 State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613, 615-17 (Alaska App. 1982). 3 Id. at 617-19 . 4 Ballard also argues that the DataMaster printout containing the test result was inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2025Court of appeals precedent also supports our interpretation of Criminal Rule 6(s). 53 In State v. Nollner, for example, a child victim of sexual assault identified the defendant to an examining physician.54 The case law regarding whether such a statement could fall within the hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment was evolving at the time; the court of appeals held that the authority “in favor of admitting [such] statements . . . [was] sufficiently strong” to justify the prosecution’s decision to present the statements to the grand jury.55 In light

2025Court of appeals precedent also supports our interpretation of Criminal Rule 6(s). 53 In State v. Nollner, for example, a child victim of sexual assault identified the defendant to an examining physician.54 The case law regarding whether such a statement could fall within the hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment was evolving at the time; the court of appeals held that the authority “in favor of admitting [such] statements . . . [was] sufficiently strong” to justify the prosecution’s decision to present the statements to the grand jury.55 In light

2023Conclusion We REVERSE Steven’s conviction for second-degree sexual assault and remand this case for further proceedings. 114 See Putnam v. State, 629 P.2d 35, 40 (Alaska 1980) (holding that when “testimony is offered merely to establish the fact that the statement was made, and not to prove the truth of the matter stated, the hearsay rule does not apply”). – 50 – 2764 Judge WOLLENBERG, concurring.

1984Putnam v. State, 629 P.2d 35, 40 (Alaska 1980).

2012It is worth noting, however, that Evidence Rule 803(4) is a hearsay exception for which the declarant's availability is immaterial. [21] 749 P.2d 905, 908-09 (Alaska App.1988). [22] Id. at 908 . [23] Id. [24] See, e.g., In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d 801, 804 (Alaska 1992); Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211, 1218 (Alaska 1991). [25] In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d at 804 (also noting that "[t]he unusually compelling need for children's hearsay statements in sex abuse cases is demonstrated primarily by the fact that the statements often constitute the only proof of the crime.

2012It is worth noting, however, that Evidence Rule 803(4) is a hearsay exception for which the declarant's availability is immaterial. [21] 749 P.2d 905, 908-09 (Alaska App.1988). [22] Id. at 908 . [23] Id. [24] See, e.g., In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d 801, 804 (Alaska 1992); Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211, 1218 (Alaska 1991). [25] In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d at 804 (also noting that "[t]he unusually compelling need for children's hearsay statements in sex abuse cases is demonstrated primarily by the fact that the statements often constitute the only proof of the crime.

2006See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Harvey, 558 P.2d 879, 884 (Alaska 1976), where our supreme court ruled that certain out-of-court statements were not admissible under the “excited utterance” hearsay exception because the out-of-court statements were “a deliberative narration of past events”, and the speaker “was not emotionally upset when questioned, but rather appeared calm.” For this reason, we conclude that Judge Card abused his discretion when he ruled that Hodge’s statement could be admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. (d) Why we reject the State’s argument that

1978McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence §§ 282-83 (2d ed. 1972); V Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1431-32 (Chadbourn rev. 1974). [2] The rule could be broadly modified, or the hearsay rule as to declarations by deceased persons concerning their assailants could be abandoned altogether. [1] Andrew Marvell, To His Coy Mistress (1650-52). [2] 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, § 345 at 173 (13th ed. 1972); V Wigmore on Evidence, § 1451 at 317 (Chadbourn ed. 1974). [3] Beech Aircraft v. Harvey, 558 P.2d 879, 886-87 (Alaska 1976); Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 630-31 (Alaska 1969).

1981See Pennington v. Snow, 471 P.2d 370, at 375-376 (Alaska 1970). [2] I find it unnecessary to determine (1) the extent to which hearsay exceptions in general satisfy the confrontation clauses of the state and federal constitutions, see California v. Green, supra , and Ohio v. Roberts, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); (2) whether the declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule specifically satisfies the confrontation clause, compare People v. Kennedy, 166 Cal. Rptr. 456 (Cal. App. 1980) with Jacobs v. State, 45 Md.

1981See Pennington v. Snow, 471 P.2d 370, at 375-376 (Alaska 1970). [2] I find it unnecessary to determine (1) the extent to which hearsay exceptions in general satisfy the confrontation clauses of the state and federal constitutions, see California v. Green, supra , and Ohio v. Roberts, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); (2) whether the declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule specifically satisfies the confrontation clause, compare People v. Kennedy, 166 Cal. Rptr. 456 (Cal. App. 1980) with Jacobs v. State, 45 Md.

1995This hearsay testimony was offered under two theories: that M.K.’s statements to Michels were “excited utterances” under Evidence Rule 803(2) and that M.K.’s statements to Michels constituted a “first complaint of rape” under the hearsay exception recognized in Greenway v. State, 626 P.2d 1060, 1060-61 (Alaska 1980).

1988The state argues that L.A.’s statements on October 10,1986, should be admissible (1) as a “first complaint” of sexual abuse, Greenway v. State, 626 P.2d 1060 (Alaska 1980); (2) as statements made for medical diagnosis and treatment, A.R.E. 803(4); and (3) under the residual exception to the hearsay rule.

1992The residual exceptions to the hearsay rules, embodied in Alaska Rule of Evidence 803(23) and Alaska Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), permit the trial judge to admit hearsay statements which do not fall within one of the traditional exceptions. 4 Gen erally, the residual exceptions are to be used only on rare occasions where the court finds the evidence “to have guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to or exceeding the guarantees reflected by the presently limited exceptions, and to have a high degree of probativeness and necessity.” Alaska R.Evid. 803(23) Commentary; see also Brandon v. State,

1992The residual exceptions to the hearsay rules, embodied in Alaska Rule of Evidence 803(23) and Alaska Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), permit the trial judge to admit hearsay statements which do not fall within one of the traditional exceptions. [4] Generally, *804 the residual exceptions are to be used only on rare occasions where the court finds the evidence "to have guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to or exceeding the guarantees reflected by the presently limited exceptions, and to have a high degree of probativeness and necessity." Alaska R.Evid. 803(23) Commentary; see also Brandon v. S

2018Evid. 803(6) cmt. 20 Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114 (1943). 21 Id. 22 Hayes v. State, 581 P.2d 221 , 222 n.1 (Alaska 1978). 23 Dobos v. Ingersoll, 9 P.3d 1020, 1027 (Alaska 2000) (“[M]edical records, including doctors’ chart notes, opinions, and diagnoses, fall squarely within the business records exception to the hearsay rule.”). 24 Noffke v. Perez, 178 P.3d 1141, 1147 (Alaska 2008). -9- 7222 business records are ordinarily assumed to have.”25 A court considering the record’s admissibility may take into account “such factors as . . . the purpose for which the record was prepared,” “any

2018Evid. 803(6) cmt. 20 Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114 (1943). 21 Id. 22 Hayes v. State, 581 P.2d 221 , 222 n.1 (Alaska 1978). 23 Dobos v. Ingersoll, 9 P.3d 1020, 1027 (Alaska 2000) (“[M]edical records, including doctors’ chart notes, opinions, and diagnoses, fall squarely within the business records exception to the hearsay rule.”). 24 Noffke v. Perez, 178 P.3d 1141, 1147 (Alaska 2008). -9- 7222 business records are ordinarily assumed to have.”25 A court considering the record’s admissibility may take into account “such factors as . . . the purpose for which the record was prepared,” “any

2025P. 6(s)(1); Galauska v. State, 527 P.2d 459, 464 (Alaska 1974) (“The first sentence of [Criminal Rule 6(s)] deals with the presentment of admissible evidence and encompasses hearsay evidence which would be admissible pursuant to one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.”); Alaska R.

2025P. 6(s)(1); Galauska v. State, 527 P.2d 459, 464 (Alaska 1974) (“The first sentence of [Criminal Rule 6(s)] deals with the presentment of admissible evidence and encompasses hearsay evidence which would be admissible pursuant to one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.”); Alaska R.

2005AS 11.41.436(a)(1) and AS 11.31.100(a)(1). .AS 11.41.445(b). .State v. Agoney, 608 P.2d 762, 764 (Alaska 1980) (a defendant's self-serving statements are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence unless they qualify under some exception to the hearsay rule or are used for a non-hearsay purpose); Marino v. State, 934 P.2d 1321, 1331 (Alaska App.1997); Stumpf v. State, 749 P.2d 880, 899 (Alaska App.1988). .

2005NOTES [1] AS 11.41.438(a)(1). [2] AS 11.41.436(a)(1) and AS 11.31.100(a)(1). [3] AS 11.41.445(b). [4] State v. Agoney, 608 P.2d 762, 764 (Alaska 1980) (a defendant's self-serving statements are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence unless they qualify under some exception to the hearsay rule or are used for a non-hearsay purpose); Marino v. State, 934 P.2d 1321, 1331 (Alaska App.1997); Stumpf v. State, 749 P.2d 880, 899 (Alaska App.1988). [5] Alaska Evidence Rule 802; Agoney, 608 P.2d at 764 . [6] Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109, 113 (Alaska 1999). [7] See Stephen A. Saltzburg, Michael M.

2019Evid. 804(b)(5) ("The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by ad

2019See Ryan , 899 P.2d at 1375 (quoting Wright , 497 U.S. at 820 -21 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ).

2019R. 703 cmt. para. 5; see also Vann v. State, 229 P.3d 197, 202-03 (Alaska App. 2010). 11 We note that the medical records were themselves admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule under Alaska Evidence Rule 803(6), assuming that a proper foundation could be laid.

2010Alaska Evidence Rule 708 allows experts to testify about this underlying information or data even though this testimony, if offered independently, could not survive a hearsay challenge or a challenge based on the witness's lack of personal knowledge. 3 Technically, this testimony is not "hearsay"-in other words, it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather for the limited purpose of explaining how the expert reached their conclusions. 4 *419 But as this Court recently noted in Vonn v. State, 229 P.3d 197, 208-09 (Alaska App. 2010), there are times when (1) there is no oth

1998"In order to satisfy the 'welfare of the child’ requirement, the non-parent must show that it clearly would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody.” Turner v. Pannick, 540 P.2d 1051, 1054 (Alaska 1975).

1998Although we do not decide whether the cited exceptions or other exceptions to the hearsay rule may apply, we note that Sluka v. State, 717 P.2d 394 (Alaska App. 1986), and Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1991), offer guidance on this issue. [3] "In order to satisfy the `welfare of the child' requirement, the non-parent must show that it clearly would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody." Turner v. Pannick, 540 P.2d 1051, 1054 (Alaska 1975).

2023Evid. 802. 12 Davison v. State, 282 P.3d 1262, 1266 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Sluka v. State, 717 P.2d 394, 399 (Alaska App. 1986)). 13 Dobos v. Ingersoll, 9 P.3d 1020, 1024 (Alaska 2000). -9- 1968 R.M. argues that the superior court should not have allowed Dr. Pauli to describe the two incidents of violent behavior that were relayed to him by other members of API’s staff because “[t]here is no evidence in the record” that these reports “were made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.” R.M. argues that because the State “did not lay a proper foundation for the testimony to be admissible

1998Although we do not decide whether the cited exceptions or other exceptions to the hearsay rule may apply, we note that Sluka v. State, 717 P.2d 394 (Alaska App. 1986), and Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1991), offer guidance on this issue. [3] "In order to satisfy the `welfare of the child' requirement, the non-parent must show that it clearly would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody." Turner v. Pannick, 540 P.2d 1051, 1054 (Alaska 1975).

1981App. 634 , 415 A.2d 590 (1980); (3) whether the state established a sufficient good faith attempt to present DeSorbo at Wike's trial to establish his unavailability for purposes of the hearsay rule, see Rule 804(a)(5), or the perhaps more stringent requirements of unavailability of the confrontation clause, see Ohio v. Roberts, supra , Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) and especially Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); and (4) whether hearsay admitted pursuant to an exception satisfies the confrontation clause even though

1981App. 634 , 415 A.2d 590 (1980); (3) whether the state established a sufficient good faith attempt to present DeSorbo at Wike's trial to establish his unavailability for purposes of the hearsay rule, see Rule 804(a)(5), or the perhaps more stringent requirements of unavailability of the confrontation clause, see Ohio v. Roberts, supra , Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) and especially Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); and (4) whether hearsay admitted pursuant to an exception satisfies the confrontation clause even though

2012It is worth noting, however, that Evidence Rule 803(4) is a hearsay exception for which the declarant's availability is immaterial. [21] 749 P.2d 905, 908-09 (Alaska App.1988). [22] Id. at 908 . [23] Id. [24] See, e.g., In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d 801, 804 (Alaska 1992); Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211, 1218 (Alaska 1991). [25] In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d at 804 (also noting that "[t]he unusually compelling need for children's hearsay statements in sex abuse cases is demonstrated primarily by the fact that the statements often constitute the only proof of the crime.

1998Although we do not decide whether the cited exceptions or other exceptions to the hearsay rule may apply, we note that Sluka v. State, 717 P.2d 394 (Alaska App. 1986), and Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1991), offer guidance on this issue. [3] "In order to satisfy the `welfare of the child' requirement, the non-parent must show that it clearly would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody." Turner v. Pannick, 540 P.2d 1051, 1054 (Alaska 1975).

1981Because the substantive crime of conspiracy does not exist in Alaska, the only proper function of a conspiracy instruction is evidentiary in nature, relating to the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule recognized in Amidon v. State, 565 P.2d 1248, 1258 (Alaska 1977).

1981In Amidon v. State, 565 P.2d 1248 (Alaska 1977), we adopted and set out the requirements for the Alaska version of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

2019Evid. 804(b)(5) ("The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by ad

2019Evid. 804(b)(5) ("The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by ad

2018Evid. 803(6) (“exclud[ing]” from the hearsay rule “[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge acquired of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make and keep the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation ind

2018Evid. 803(6) cmt. 20 Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114 (1943). 21 Id. 22 Hayes v. State, 581 P.2d 221 , 222 n.1 (Alaska 1978). 23 Dobos v. Ingersoll, 9 P.3d 1020, 1027 (Alaska 2000) (“[M]edical records, including doctors’ chart notes, opinions, and diagnoses, fall squarely within the business records exception to the hearsay rule.”). 24 Noffke v. Perez, 178 P.3d 1141, 1147 (Alaska 2008). -9- 7222 business records are ordinarily assumed to have.”25 A court considering the record’s admissibility may take into account “such factors as . . . the purpose for which the record was prepared,” “any

2015See Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349 , 1357 n. 20 (Alaska 1980); - Commentary - Alaska ER, 801(d)(2) ("[If these rules [-801(d)(2)(C), (D), and (R)-] were written on a clean slate without reference to the Federal Rules, admissions would be treated as exceptions to the hearsay rule and placed under Rule 803."). .

1994To satisfy the right to confrontation, a statement must have sufficient indicia of reliability.” Id. at 1368 .

2007See Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179, 1183 (Alaska 1974) (holding that "ampule certification and breathalyzer calibration need not be the subject of personal testimony and are clearly admissible under the official records exception to the hearsay rule"); State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613, 615-17 (Alaska App.1982) (bolding that a certificate of calibration is admissible under the public records exception and its admission does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation); Byrne v. State, 654 P.2d 795, 796-97 (Alaska App.1982) (accord). 13 .

1982We follow Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179 (Alaska 1974), decided before adoption of the new evidence rules, and hold that the breathalyzer packet is admissible under Alaska Rule of Evidence 803(8)(a). 2 Wester held that the “ampule certification and breathalyzer calibration need not be the subject of personal testimony and are clearly admissible under the official records exception to the hearsay rule.” 3 528 P.2d at 1183 .