On Point: D. Hearsay

State v. Jeffrey D. Lee, 2018AP1507-CR, 11/5/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.

State v. Tyler J. Yost, 2018AP2251-CR, 9/18/19, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Loose lips sink ships. They can also land you in jail for another year. That’s what happened to Yost when he and other inmates started bad mouthing their probation agent while chilling in the common area of the Waukesha County Jail. Yost allegedly called his agent a “bitch” and said that when he got out he was going to “crimp her brake lines,” and he didn’t care if her kids or family were in the car. 

State v. Peter J. Hanson, 2019 WI 63, 6/5/19, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

Hanson was called to testify at a John Doe proceeding looking into an unsolved homicide. He was eventually charged with the crime, and at his trial the jury heard  a portion of Hanson’s John Doe testimony. The supreme court held the admission of this evidence didn’t violate Hanson’s right to confrontation. The court also holds that Hanson’s John Doe testimony was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings because that warning isn’t required at a John Doe proceeding.

State v. Joseph B. Reinwand, 2019 WI 25, 3/19/19, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

The Confrontation Clause ordinarily bars the admission of testimonial statements of a witness if the witness does not appear at trial to testify and be cross-examined. But under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine, a witness’s testimonial statements may be admitted if the witness does appear to testify as a the result of wrongdoing by the defendant. The supreme court accepted the court of appeals’ certification of this case to address the scope of forfeiture doctrine, but as it happens the decision doesn’t address the doctrine because it determines the statements at issue are not testimonial and therefore do not implicate the Confrontation Clause.

State v. Peter J. Hanson, 2016AP2058-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 1/15/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

Whether the admission of hearsay statements of a defendant’s deceased wife inculpating him in murder violates his right to confrontation?

Whether trial counsel is ineffective in failing to move to suppress inculpatory statements that the defendant made at a John Doe hearing where he was in custody and not properly Mirandized?

State v. Kristy L. Malnory, 2018AP216-CR, District 4, 12/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

At Malnory’s trial for operating with a prohibited alcohol content, her lawyer failed to object to the admission of the “Blood/Urine Analysis” form completed at the time of her blood draw. She argues this was deficient performance because the form is testimonial, and admitting it without the testimony of the person who completed it violates her confrontation rights. Maybe so, says the court of appeals, but even if that’s true there was no prejudice.

We are still waiting for SCOTUS to answer this question.  In the meantime, you might read this update on the Confrontation Blog. If you have this issue in the trial or appellate courts, you might find want to review this white paper tracking the different approaches used by courts around the country. Who knows? Your case could be the one SCOTUS takes.

State v. Lonnie S. Sorenson, 2016AP1540-CR, 12/5/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sorenson appeals jury-trial convictions for operating with a PAC and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was also found guilty of operating with a detectable amount of THC in his blood, but this was dismissed by operation of statute. See Wis. Stat. § 346.63(2)(am). He raises ineffective assistance, pretrial discovery, and confrontation issues, but the court rejects them all.

State v. Eric L. Moore, 2016AP1292-CR, District 1, 10/31/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Moore’s right to confrontation wasn’t violated by the admission of the recording of a 911 call about an incident in which Moore was alleged to have committed battery against A.J. Nor was Moore’s lawyer ineffective for deciding not to elicit information that A.J. later recanted that allegation of battery.

State v. Raymond L. Nieves, 2017 WI 69, 6/29/17, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2014AP1623-CR; case activity (including briefs)

Forget the old saws that “appellate courts decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds,” “appellate courts should not reach constitutional issues when another issue is dispositive,” and “the supreme court should not decide issues forfeited in the court of appeals.” They don’t constrain SCOW here. Indeed, the majority opinion rushes past the plain language of §971.12(3) in order to decide a major Confrontation Clause issue and to reverse a big defense win in the court of appeals.