Wassilie v. State
2002 Alas. App. LEXIS 219, 2002 WL 31399697, 57 P.3d 719 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), a witness's testimony at trial claiming a lack of memory regarding the substance of a prior statement is considered "inconsistent" with that prior statement. This inconsistency allows the prior statement to be admitted as substantive evidence, regardless of whether the memory loss is genuine or feigned.
Facts:
- Henry Wassilie assaulted his mother, Mary Wassilie, and his father, Evan Wassilie, on January 8, 1998.
- On the night of the assault, Evan Wassilie gave a statement to Village Police Chief Steven Alexie.
- In his statement, Evan told Chief Alexie that Henry had hit and kicked both him and Mary.
- Evan also detailed that Mary was crying and wailing during the beatings and that Henry had stated he was getting fed up with them.
- At trial, Evan, who was over 90 years old, testified that he was present when his wife was injured but could not remember how or when it happened.
- Evan gave several confused answers, stating the assault occurred when it was hot and sunny, and that his son was last home in '1917.'
- When asked if he remembered speaking to police officers at his house on the night of the assault, Evan testified, 'I didn’t see any of those guys.'
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Henry Wassilie with second-degree assault and fourth-degree assault in the superior court (trial court).
- During the trial, the prosecution called the defendant's father, Evan Wassilie, as a witness.
- After Evan's direct examination was interrupted, both the prosecution and defense consented to his dismissal as a witness.
- The State later called Chief Alexie to testify about statements Evan made on the night of the assault.
- The defense objected on hearsay grounds, but the trial judge admitted Evan's statements as prior inconsistent statements under Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(A).
- A jury convicted Henry Wassilie on both counts.
- Wassilie (appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals of Alaska.
- The Court of Appeals initially remanded the case for the trial court to make findings regarding the circumstances of Evan's dismissal as a witness.
- After the trial court made its findings, the case returned to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the remaining legal issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a witness's genuine memory loss at trial render a prior, out-of-court statement about the event 'inconsistent' with their testimony, making it admissible as non-hearsay under Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A)?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
Yes. A witness's genuine memory loss at trial is inconsistent with a prior statement for the purposes of Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(A), making the prior statement admissible. The court reasoned that the foundational requirement to give a witness an opportunity to explain or deny a prior statement should not be mechanically applied, especially with witnesses of advanced age or youth who present challenges. Here, Evan Wassilie was over 90, gave confused testimony, and the defense itself requested he be excused, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the minimal foundation sufficient. Citing precedent from Richards v. State, the court confirmed a broad definition of inconsistency, holding that it is irrelevant whether a claimed memory loss is genuine or feigned. The crucial point is that the claimed lack of memory at trial is inconsistent with the witness's earlier claim to remember and recount the event.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Alaska's broad interpretation of what constitutes an 'inconsistent statement' for the purpose of admitting prior statements as non-hearsay evidence. By explicitly removing any legal distinction between genuine and feigned memory loss, the court simplifies the inquiry for trial judges, who no longer need to determine the sincerity of a witness's memory failure. This precedent makes it easier to admit prior statements from witnesses who, due to age, trauma, or intimidation, genuinely cannot recall events on the stand, preventing defendants from benefiting from a key witness's subsequent memory issues.
Unlock the full brief for Wassilie v. State