On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Surrogate medical examiner’s testimony didn’t violate Confrontation Clause
State v. Miguel Muniz-Munoz, 2014AP702-CR, 3/1/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
By the time Muniz-Munoz went to trial for first degree intentional homicide, the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy of the victim was dead. The trial court allowed another medical examiner who reviewed the case record to give his independent opinion about the cause of the victim’s death. This did not violate Muniz-Munoz’s right to confrontation.
SCOW: Juvenile confession must be recorded unless suspect affirmatively refuses to cooperate with recording
State v. Raheem Moore, 2015 WI 54, 6/16/15, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court affirms the court of appeals’ conclusion that 15-year-old Raheem Moore’s confession was voluntary, but it rejects the court of appeals’ reading of § 938.31, which requires juvenile confessions to be recorded unless the juvenile “refused to respond or cooperate” with the interrogation if it was being recorded, § 938.31(3)(b) and (c)1.
Court of Appeals drains more meaning from the word “exigency”
State v. Joel I.-N., 2014 WI App 119; case activity
The unrecorded statement Joel I.N., a juvenile, gave to the police was admissible despite the fact the police failed to record the statement as required by §§ 983.195(2)(b) and 938.31(3)(b) because “exigent public safety circumstances” rendered recording his statement infeasible under § 938.31(3)(c)5. Joel also knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.
State v. Raheem Moore, 2013AP127-CR, petition for review granted 5/22/14
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point)
Whether a juvenile “refused to respond or cooperate” during a portion of a custodial interrogation if it was going to be recorded, such that § 938.31(3)(c)1. allowed the interrogating officers to turn off the recording device.
Whether an error in failing to record a portion of the custodial interrogation requires exclusion of the statements that were recorded.
Failure to record portion of juvenile’s confession doesn’t require suppression
State v. Raheem Moore, 2014 WI App 19, petition for review granted, 5/22/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 54; case activity
Moore, a 15-year-old charged with homicide, made incriminating statements to police 11 hours after he was arrested. His most incriminating statement–that he was the shooter and not merely an accomplice–came during a portion of the interrogation that was not recorded as required by § 938.195,
Statements – Suppression: Electronic Recording — Adults
State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10
For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis
Issue1: Whether failure to electronically record Kramer’s interrogations requires suppression.
Holding1: Although the supreme court exercised supervisory authority granted it under Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 7, to require recording of juvenile interrogations, State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, the grant of authority to court of appeals under Wis.
Statements – Suppression: Electronic Recording — Juveniles
State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9
For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶58 … All custodial interrogation of juveniles in future cases shall be electronically recorded where feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. Audiotaping is sufficient to satisfy our requirement; however, videotaping may provide an even more complete picture of what transpired during the interrogation.