On Point blog, page 5 of 6
Confrontation – Statements Made to Police During “Ongoing Emergency” not “Testimonial” Hearsay
Michigan v. Bryant, USSC No. 09-150
At respondent Richard Bryant’s trial, the court admitted statements that the victim, Anthony Covington, made to police officers who discovered him mortally wounded in a gas station parking lot. … We hold that the circumstances of the interaction between Covington and the police objectively indicate that the “primary purpose of the interrogation” was “to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.” Davis,
Confrontation – Generally – Forfeiture by Wrongdoing – Harmless Error; Other Acts Evidence: Pornography (& Intent to Kill); Consent to Search; Judicial Bias
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply
Confrontation – Generally
The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, cert grant 9/28/10
Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court)
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.
Cert. Petition
Follow-up to Melendez-Diaz v.
Confrontation – Testimonial Statement, Opportunity for Cross-Examination – Witness Who Testified and Then Was Dismissed
State v. Samuel Nelis, 2007 WI 58, affirming unpublished decision
For Nelis: Robert A. Ferg
Issue/Holding:
¶45 Although Steve Stone testified at trial, Nelis argues that Steve Stone did not have the opportunity to explain or deny his alleged oral statements because the State did not examine him concerning such statements, and the oral statements were not made known prior to Police Chief Stone’s testimony.
Confrontation – “Testimonial” Statement – Generally: “Broad” Definition Applies – Solicitation by Police not Absolutely Necessary
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, on bypass
For Jensen: Craig W. Albee
Issue/Holding:
¶24 We note that there is support for the proposition that the hallmark of testimonial statements is whether they are made at the request or suggestion of the police. See State v. Barnes, 854 A.2d 208, 211 ( Me. 2004).
Confrontation – “Testimonial” Statement – Letter Addressed to / Voicemails Recorded by Police
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, on bypass
For Jensen: Craig W. Albee
Issue/Holding:
¶27 In light of the standard set out above, we conclude that under the circumstances, a reasonable person in Julie’s position would anticipate a letter addressed to the police and accusing another of murder would be available for use at a later trial. The content and the circumstances surrounding the letter make it very clear that Julie intended the letter to be used to further investigate or aid in prosecution in the event of her death.
Confrontation – “Non-Testimonial” Statement – Statements to Acquaintances
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, on bypassFor Jensen: Craig W. Albee
Issue/Holding:
¶31 Finally, we consider the statements Julie made to Wojt and DeFazio. Jensen argues that if the circumstances reveal that the declarant believed her statements to nongovernmental actors would be passed on to law enforcement officials, those statements are testimonial. While we reiterate that governmental involvement is not a necessary condition for testimonial statements,
Confrontation – Hearsay: “Testimonial” Statement – Excited Utterances – Ongoing Emergency
State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06; subsequent history: affirmed, 2007 WI App 252 (court assumes without deciding that statements were testimonial but holds that Rodriguez forfeited right to confrontation by intimidating witness from testifying), PFR denied 2/21/08
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether statements to the police,
Confrontation – Hearsay: “Testimonial” Statement – “Spontaneous, Unsolicited Statements” to Police
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8
For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue/Holding: “(S)pontaneous, unsolicited statements offered to police officers immediately following the trauma of [declarant’s] cousin’s arrest at gunpoint” were not “testimonial” and therefore did not violate Crawford, ¶¶51-56:
¶53 Adams initiated the interaction with the officers; the police did not seek her out. She approached the police officers after they had arrested her cousin at gunpoint.
Confrontation – Hearsay – Statement of Recent Perception, § 908.045(2)
State v. Antwan B. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, affirming 2004 WI App 111
For Manuel: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1 [general principles]: Assuming that an out of court statement first satisfies a hearsay rule (¶23), it does not implicate the “core” concern of the confrontation clause unless the statement is considered “testimonial” under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S.