Alaska R. Evid. 101 commentary

(a) General Applicability. There are three courts in the

Alaska judicial system—the Supreme Court, the Superior

Court, and the District. Trials, both civil and criminal, are

conducted at the Superior Court and District Court level. The

judges who sit on these courts should find the new Rules of

Evidence no more difficult to apply—and hopefully somewhat

easier—than common law rules. But magistrates, whose

authority is delimited under AS 22.15, are working on a part

time basis and may find the New Rules difficult. Nevertheless,

experience has shown that they exhibit a workable grasp of the

existing rules of evidence. Thus, this subdivision states that the

Rules of Evidence shall apply in cases tried before magistrates

as well as judges.

These rules are not applicable in areas directly covered by

other rules promulgated by the Alaska Supreme Court. For

example, Criminal Rule 5.1(d) as amended (preliminary

examinations in criminal cases) and Criminal Rule 6(r) (grand

jury) govern the admission of evidence in their respective

areas. See, State v. Gieffels, 554 P.2d 460 (Alaska 1976).

Children’s Rules specifying special rules of evidence for

children’s proceedings will remain in effect (e.g., 13(a) (2)),

unless they are superseded by these Rules (e.g., 17(a)).

(b) Rules of Privilege. This subdivision implements the

privilege article of the rules. “It recognizes that confidentiality

once destroyed cannot be restored, and that a privilege is

effective only if it bars all disclosure at all times.” 5

Weinstein’s Evidence Paragraph 1101 [1].

(c) Rules Inapplicable. It should be noted that this rule

does not decide the reach of constitutional principles as applied

to admission of illegally seized evidence. See State v. Sears,

Reporter’s Comment to that rule.

(1) Preliminary Questions of Fact. Paragraph (1) states for

convenience, the provisions of Rule 104(a), supra. See

Reporter’s Comment to that rule.

(2) Miscellaneous Proceedings. Extradition and rendition

proceedings are essentially administrative, and traditionally the

rules of evidence have not applied. 1 Wigmore § 4(6).

The rules of evidence have not been regarded as applicable

to sentencing or probation proceedings, where great reliance is

placed upon the presentence investigation and report. This is in

accord with previous law. Cf. State v. Sears, supra.

Warrants for arrest, criminal summonses, and search

warrants are issued upon complaint or affidavit showing

probable cause. The nature of the proceedings make

application of the formal rules of evidence inappropriate and

impractical.

Because summary contempt proceedings are not full

adversary contests but immediate responses to special

problems of misbehavior, the rules of evidence do not apply.

Habeas corpus hearings are treated like all other cases under

subdivision (b), supra, and the rules apply in these hearings.