In Ashenfelter v. State, 988 P.2d 120 (Alaska App. 1999) the Court summarized the holding in Hamilton v. State (1989). The Court stated that in Hamilton v. State "the risks of hearsay evidence were substantial enough that the use of hearsay should be restricted at sentencing. Accordingly, the Court adopted the rule that when a defendant denies the State's allegations under oath and submits to cross-examination, the State should then be required either to produce its witnesses in court or prove that the witnesses are unavailable and that the circumstances tend to confirm the witnesses' veracity." (Id. at 125-26 (citing Hamilton, 771 P.2d at 1362-63).