On Point: D. Hearsay

Adam Samia v. United States, USSC No 22-196  ; cert. granted 12/13/22; Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

Question presented:

Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

State v. Kevin J. McDowell, 2022AP164-CR, District 4, 9/22/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The decision in this interlocutory appeal addresses the procedure for assessing whether out-of-court statements the state proposes to admit at a criminal trial are “testimonial” and therefore inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. It also rejects the state’s claim that a deceased witness’s statements to police are nontestimonial because they were made to address an ongoing emergency.

State v. Darrell K. Smith, 2021AP72-CR, 9/20/22, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Smith of 2nd degree sexual assault of A.B. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when (1) statements from a non-testifying sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) were admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause, and (2) the circuit admitted a DOC photo of Smith and two officers testified that the photo was obtained from the DOC, thereby informing the jury that Smith had previous convictions. The circuit court denied both claims without a Machner hearing. The court of appeals reverses and remands for a hearing.

State v. Garland Dean Barnes, 202AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/15/22; affirmed 6/6/23; case activity (including briefs)

Questions Presented:

Can a defendant open the door to testimonial hearsay violating his confrontation rights, and which was excluded based on an egregious discovery violation, by challenging the quality of the police investigation?

Can the claim that a non-testifying officer witnessed the defendant commit the crime be admitted over hearsay objections under the theory that it is admissible to show the course of investigation, not for the truth of the matter asserted?

State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2021 WI App 55; Review granted 1/11/22; affirmed 2/21/23; case activity (including briefs)

This is the appeal from Thomas’s second conviction at trial for the false imprisonment, sexual assault and murder of his wife. (The first conviction was ultimately undone by the Seventh Circuit, which held that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to seek out certain expert testimony.) Thomas raises three issues. He claims he was convicted of the sexual assault count in violation of the corroboration rule, because the only evidence it occurred was his own confession. He also says all three convictions were obtained in violation of his right to confrontation, as the state introduced a hearsay lab report concerning DNA evidence during cross-examination of his expert. And he argues one of the jurors was objectively biased because she at least believed she was a cousin of one state’s witness. The court rejects all three claims.

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2021 WI 27, 3/18/21, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity (including some briefs)

Julie Jensen died by poisoning in 1998. The state eventually charged her husband, Mark, with having killed her; the defense was that she had died by suicide. Before her death Julie had made oral and written statements to the effect that Mark would be responsible if something happened to her. She wasn’t available to testify at the trial, of course, and Mark moved to exclude these statements on Confrontation grounds. Our supreme court now holds that, when it held these statements testimonial in a prior appeal (in 2007), it established the law of the case; it further concludes that SCOTUS has not altered the law so much since then that the law-of-the-case doctrine should give way. So, it remands for a new trial, without the statements.

State v. Frank P. Smogoleski, 2019AP1780-CR, District 2, 11/18/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state wins its appeal of two circuit court orders, one excluding the use of preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who is now dead, the other excluding other-acts evidence.

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).

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2018AP1952, petition for review of a summary court of appeals order granted 6/16/20; affirmed 3/18/21; case activity

Usually we do to the issues presented first. Here, they’re pretty insubstantial, so let’s just say what’s going on: the supreme court has intervened to (potentially) save a manifestly unconstitutional (and you don’t have to take our word for it) homicide conviction and life sentence in a notorious case.

State v. Christopher Drew Helwig, 2019AP448-CR, 6/4/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court admitted a blood/urine analysis form and lab report containing blood test results into evidence during Helwig’s OWI trial. On appeal Helwig argued that these documents were hearsay. And because the nurse who drew the blood did not testify at trial, the admission of these documents violated the Confrontation Clause. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.