In Brandon v. State, 839 P.2d 400, 408 (Alaska App. 1992) a police officer testified about his investigation of the crime scene in a case of domestic violence. On cross-examination, the defense attorney questioned the officer concerning his failure to take fingerprints from the weapons allegedly used in the assault, a broom and a belt. On redirect, the prosecutor asked the officer to explain why he hadn't tested these items for fingerprints. In response, the officer testified that the victim had already identified the defendant as her attacker. This answer drew a hearsay objection, but the trial judge overruled it. On appeal, we upheld the trial court's ruling; we concluded that the trial judge could reasonably find that the victim's out-of-court statement had been offered only to explain the officer's investigative actions. (See id. at 408.)