On Point: i. Not admitted for truth

Grant County v. T.L.M., 2025AP500, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.L.M. challenges her recommitment, arguing that the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over her objection, and that the court failed to make the required factual findings to support the commitment. COA concludes that although the circuit court erroneously admitted some hearsay, the error was harmless, and that the circuit court satisfied the demands of Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

Smith v. Arizona, USSC No. 22-899, 6/21/2024, vacating and remanding Arizona v. Smith, No. 1CA-CR 21-0451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022) (unreported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS unanimously holds that expert witness testimony restating an absent lab analyst’s factual assertions to support his or her own opinion is hearsay. However, the Court declined to address the second part of the Confrontation Clause test, whether the underlying evidence was testimonial, as the issue was undeveloped in this case.

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State v. Peter J. Hanson, 2019 WI 63, 6/5/19, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)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. Donavin Hemphill, 2005 WI App 248
N.B. The holding quoted below was overruled, in State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, ¶24n. 8. In other words, “a spontaneous statement to a police officer” is not, as a matter of law, non-testimonial.
For Hemphill: Jeffrey Jensen

Issue/Holding: An out-of-court statement by a witness to police (responding to a report of “trouble” involving a “subject with a gun”) which pointed out the defendant (“Those are the ones.