On Point blog, page 2 of 6
Court of appeals rejects challenges to blood-urine form and lab report
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.
SCOW dodges forfeiture-by-wrongdoing Confrontation Clause issue
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.
SCOW to address admissibility of deceased’s hearsay statements, whether Miranda warnings are required at John Doe hearings
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?
Admission of paperwork regarding blood draw wasn’t prejudicial
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.
Are autopsy reports testimonial statements under the Confrontation Clause?
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.
Admission of 911 call didn’t violate Confrontation Clause
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.
Et tu, Bruton? SCOW says Confrontation Clause doesn’t bar admission of co-defendant’s inculpatory statements to fellow inmate
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.
Are autopsy reports testimonial evidence?
The Confrontation Blog predicts this issue is SCOTUS-worthy. Click here and preserve the issue in your client’s case.
Convictions for battery, violation of no contact order upheld
State v. Earnest Lee Nicholson, 2015AP2154-CR & 2015AP2155-CR, 3/7/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nicholson challenges the validity of the no-contact order he was convicted of violating, and also argues his rights to confrontation and to testify were violated. The court of appeals rejects his claims.
SCOW: Toxicology report not “testimonial” in Len Bias case
State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2017 WI 9, on certification from the court of appeals, 2015AP158-CR, 2/14/17; case activity (including briefs)
S.D. was found dead in circumstances strongly suggestive of a drug overdose. The police summoned the medical examiner, who eventually performed an autopsy. The examiner sent samples from S.D.’s body to a lab in another state for toxicology testing, which revealed the presence of chemicals indicating a heroin overdose. Mattox, eventually charged with delivering the fatal heroin, claims his Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated when the state introduced the toxicology report through the medical examiner, rather than the lab analyst who performed the testing.