public records exception in Alaska

8 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (21)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Hugginsgreen alaskactapp · 1982 · cited in 4 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2025 2 sentences 2018The incident report in this case would be inadmissible under the public records exception because it is investigative in nature, it was prepared by an agent of the DOC, and it was used by the State in a case in which the State is a party. 36 State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613, 616 (Alaska App. 1982) (“An official would have no motive to misrepresent those facts [regarding breathalyzer calibration and certification] because the nexus between his findings and a particular result on a particular prosecution is too attenuated.”); see also Wilson v. State, 756 P.2d 307, 313 (Alaska App. 1988). 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 .	4	4
Wilson v. Stategreen alaskactapp · 1988 · cited in 3 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2016–2018 2 sentences 2018The incident report in this case would be inadmissible under the public records exception because it is investigative in nature, it was prepared by an agent of the DOC, and it was used by the State in a case in which the State is a party. 36 State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613, 616 (Alaska App. 1982) (“An official would have no motive to misrepresent those facts [regarding breathalyzer calibration and certification] because the nexus between his findings and a particular result on a particular prosecution is too attenuated.”); see also Wilson v. State, 756 P.2d 307, 313 (Alaska App. 1988). 2016Based on this purported failure to satisfy the public records exception, Wassillie then argues that the incident report necessarily fails to satisfy the requirements of the busmess records ex-ceptlon In Wilson v. State, 756 P.2d 307, 312-13 (Alaska App.1988), we expressly rejected the *554 argument that a business record must also satisfy the requirements of the public -ree-ords exception.	3	3
Wester v. Stategreen alaska · 1974 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2018 2 sentences 2018Evid. 803(8) cmt. (noting that the breathalyzer certification found admissible in Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179 (Alaska 1974), would be admissible as a business record under Evidence Rule 803(6)). 39 United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying the public records exception). 40 Alaska R. 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 .	1	2
United States v. Paul v. Oatesgreen ca2 · 1977 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1988–2018 2 sentences 2018Contra United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 78 (2d Cir. 1977); State v. Hammel, 917 A.2d 1267, 1271 (N.H. 2007) (“[T]he business records exception cannot be used as a ‘back door’ to introduce evidence that would not be admissible under (continued...) -12- 7222 because a reporter with “no knowledge of a specific case” is presumed to have “no incentive to misrepresent.”37 For instance, a breathalyzer certification by a state official at the Department of Health and Social Services who has “no knowledge of a specific case” is reliable enough to be admissible.38 And “routine and unambiguous” recor 1988In support of this argument, he cites United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2nd Cir.1977), which held that *313 evidence inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(b) could not be admissible under Rule 803(6).	1	2
United States v. William Weilandgreen ca9 · 2005 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018United States v. Weiland , 420 F.3d 1062 , 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying the public records exception). 2018Evid. 803(8) cmt. (noting that the breathalyzer certification found admissible in Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179 (Alaska 1974), would be admissible as a business record under Evidence Rule 803(6)). 39 United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying the public records exception). 40 Alaska R.	1	2
Hoffman v. Palmergreen ca2 · 1942 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Evid. 803(6) cmt. (quoting Hoffman v. Palmer, 129 F.2d 976, 991 (2d Cir. 1942)). -13- 7222 an individual and accuses him of misconduct.41 This kind of report thus has an elevated risk of unreliability; it is possible that the reporter’s biases about the accused have compromised the report’s accuracy.42 These reliability concerns are particularly acute when reports have been prepared in anticipation of litigation in a particular case, as “many of the normal checks upon the accuracy of business records are not operative” in such circumstances.43 41 See, e.g., Weiland, 420 F.3d at 1074-75 (“ ‘[P]	1	1
Palmer v. Hoffmangreen scotus · 1943 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018JUR. 2D Trials § 807 (2017) (describing the various ways a witness’s perception of an event may be distorted); see also Bermen v. State, 798 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Tex. App. 1990) (indicating that “the subjective features of reports made in a[n] . . . adversarial setting” lack the inherent reliability of reports about “unambiguous factual matter” and therefore holding escape reports inadmissible). 43 2 KENNETH S. BROUN ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 288 (7th ed. 2016); see also Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114 (1943) (excluding accident reports from business records exception because unlike busine	1	1
State v. Hammellgreen nh · 2007 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Contra United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 78 (2d Cir. 1977); State v. Hammel, 917 A.2d 1267, 1271 (N.H. 2007) (“[T]he business records exception cannot be used as a ‘back door’ to introduce evidence that would not be admissible under (continued...) -12- 7222 because a reporter with “no knowledge of a specific case” is presumed to have “no incentive to misrepresent.”37 For instance, a breathalyzer certification by a state official at the Department of Health and Social Services who has “no knowledge of a specific case” is reliable enough to be admissible.38 And “routine and unambiguous” recor	1	1
United States v. Maria Orozco, United States of America v. Jose Liva-Coronagreen ca9 · 1979 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Evid. 803(6) cmt. (quoting Hoffman v. Palmer, 129 F.2d 976, 991 (2d Cir. 1942)). -13- 7222 an individual and accuses him of misconduct.41 This kind of report thus has an elevated risk of unreliability; it is possible that the reporter’s biases about the accused have compromised the report’s accuracy.42 These reliability concerns are particularly acute when reports have been prepared in anticipation of litigation in a particular case, as “many of the normal checks upon the accuracy of business records are not operative” in such circumstances.43 41 See, e.g., Weiland, 420 F.3d at 1074-75 (“ ‘[P]	1	1
Bermen v. Stategreen texapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018JUR. 2D Trials § 807 (2017) (describing the various ways a witness’s perception of an event may be distorted); see also Bermen v. State, 798 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Tex. App. 1990) (indicating that “the subjective features of reports made in a[n] . . . adversarial setting” lack the inherent reliability of reports about “unambiguous factual matter” and therefore holding escape reports inadmissible). 43 2 KENNETH S. BROUN ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 288 (7th ed. 2016); see also Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114 (1943) (excluding accident reports from business records exception because unlike busine	1	1
State v. Godshalkgreen njsuperctappdiv · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
State v. Cartergreen mont · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
Byrne v. Stategreen alaskactapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 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 .	1	1
Rembusch v. Stategreen indctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
Rackoff v. Stategreen gactapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
State v. Dedmangreen nm · 2004 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
State v. Normangreen orctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
Luginbyhl v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
Bohsancurt v. Eisenberggreen arizctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	1
Hess v. Stategreen alaska · 2001 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121, 1127 (Alaska 2001) ("The evidence reliably reflects the fact of acquittal. 2006Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121, 1127 (Alaska 2001) ('The evidence reliably reflects the fact of acquittal.	1	1
French v. Jadon, Inc.green alaska · 1996 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See, e.g., French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20, 24 (Alaska 1996) ("[Hjearsay statements that would be inadmissible at trial are inadmissible in a motion for summary judgment.”); Alaska R. -Evid. 803(8)(b)(i) (specifying that "investigative reports by police” are not within the public-records exception to hearsay rule).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Kanhai green nycrimct · 2005 1 sentence 2007See, eg., Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471, 475-80 (Ct.App.2006); Rackoff v. State, 275 Ga.App. 737 , 621 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2005); Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); State v. Carter, 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1001, 1005-07 (2005); State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326 , 885 A.2d 969, 973 (Law Div.2005); State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628, 636 (2004); People v. Kanhai, 8 Misc.3d 447 , 797 NY.S.2d 870, 875 (Crim.Ct.2005); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1 , 125 P.3d 15, 18-20 (2005); Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 460 , 618 S.E.2d 347, 355	1	2007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AK § Alaska Stat. § 11.56.310 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

LA 119 (1957–2025) OH 65 (1991–2026) TX 43 (1983–2026) FL 42 (1971–2025) IN 21 (1982–2024) CA 20 (1994–2026) WA 18 (1984–2026) PA 18 (1971–2025) IL 16 (1978–2024) NM 15 (1995–2020) MI 11 (1992–2025) AZ 11 (1989–2022) WI 10 (1998–2025) NJ 10 (2002–2024) MA 8 (1985–2025) AK 8 (1988–2025) DC 7 (1991–2009) MD 7 (1990–2018) TN 6 (1999–2018) NC 6 (2006–2026) ID 6 (1990–2026) OR 6 (1992–2025) HI 5 (1996–2019) ME 5 (1984–2022) NV 5 (2014–2017) GA 5 (1998–2016) MS 4 (2003–2021) IA 4 (1982–2025) SD 4 (2004–2026) OK 4 (1936–2014) CO 4 (1987–2015) VA 3 (2003–2019) SC 3 (2008–2014) NY 3 (2007–2010) CT 2 (1970–1997) UT 2 (1987–2017) AL 2 (2000–2000) VT 2 (2000–2026) NE 2 (1938–2013) ND 2 (2009–2013) WV 2 (1999–2002) MN 2 (1984–2024) DE 2 (1986–2001)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check