State v. Abd-Rahmaan, 154 Wash. 2d 280

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that Crawford v. Washington does not apply to hearsay offered in a sentence modification hearing because such a hearing is not a criminal prosecution. The court held that confrontation is governed by due process principles under Morrissey v. Brewer and requires a good-cause determination balancing the reliability of hearsay against the difficulty of procuring live witnesses. Because the trial court made no adequate record explaining the reliability of the hearsay or the reason for admitting it, the court reversed the Court of Appeals.

Holdings

1. Crawford v. Washington does not apply to sentence modification hearings because such hearings are post-conviction proceedings rather than criminal prosecutions, and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause does not govern them.
2. Hearsay may be admitted in a sentence modification hearing when good cause exists, determined by considering the reliability of the hearsay in combination with the difficulty or expense of procuring the live witness.
3. The trial court's record was insufficient to establish good cause for admitting the hearsay evidence because it contained neither a showing that the evidence was demonstrably reliable nor any explanation of the difficulty or cost of procuring live witnesses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Crawford v. Washington's Sixth Amendment rule requiring prior cross-examination before admission of testimonial hearsay applies in a sentence modification hearing.
2. Whether hearsay may be admitted in a sentence modification hearing without a sufficient record establishing good cause, including the reliability of the hearsay and the difficulty or expense of procuring live witnesses.
3. Whether the trial court's record was sufficient to permit appellate review of its admission of the hearsay evidence and sentence modification.

Disposition

reversed