On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Court rejects hearsay, sufficiency claims in ch. 51 appeal
Waukesha County v. I.R.T., 2020AP996, 11/4/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity
The county sought to extend I.R.T.’s commitment but could not be located for a time. Eventually the court issued a capias and I.R.T. was arrested. At the extension hearing, there was testimony that after his parole in a criminal matter ended I.R.T. had become homeless and had not taken medications or communicated with the county or his “outpatient prescribers.” (¶14). A psychologist opined that I.R.T. would be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn due to his history of noncompliance with treatment and his “history of psychotic symptoms, and threatening behaviors toward others” and referred to information received from “staff” at an unnamed facility and I.R.T.’s parents. (¶16).
Circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay at child sexual assault trial, but error was harmless
State v. Jeffrey D. Lee, 2018AP1507-CR, 11/5/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At a jury trial for child sexual assault, the circuit court admitted “other acts” evidence that Lee had similarly assaulted 5 other children. The court of appeals called the “other acts” evidence of the 3rd, 4th and 5th children “textbook hearsay,” held that the circuit court erred in admitting it, but affirmed based on the harmless error doctrine.
Confrontation – Certified Bank (“Business”) Records – Nontestimonial
State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208
For Doss: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether the authenticating affidavit of a bank record was “testimonial” within the Confrontation Clause.
Holding:
¶45 The parties do not dispute that the circuit court correctly described Crawford and Manuel as identifying business records as nontestimonial,
Confrontation – Certified Medical Records
State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243
For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall
Issue/Holding1: The confrontation clause doesn’t prohibit a witness from reading to the jury admissible medical records:
¶13 First, as we have seen, the certified medical records were received by the trial court without objection. Certainly, the jurors could have read the pertinent excerpts, and, also, the prosecutor or defense counsel could have read to the jury excerpts from those records.