Ashenfelter v. State , 1999 Alas. App. LEXIS 103 ( 1999 )

COATS, Chief Judge,

concurring.

I have no quarrel with the application of the Hamilton rule in this case.¹ However, I wish to repeat the position which I took in my concurring opinion in Hamilton:

I am not confident, however, that in every case where the defendant denies a material matter we should require the state either to call a witness to testify at the sentencing hearing or to prove the unavailability of a witness before using hearsay statements. I would prefer to resolve this issue on a case-by-case basis. It is important for the trial court to have as much reliable information as possible when sentencing a defendant. I am concerned that the rule which the court announces in this case may unduly restrict that information in other cases.^[2]

1 . See Hamilton v. State, 771 P.2d 1358 (Alaska App.1989).

[2] 2. Id. at 1364.