On Point: I. Authentication, Ch. 909

State v. Robert Vincent McCoy, 2012AP2583-CR, District 1, 1/7/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

An armed robbery outside a bar was caught on the security camera of a nearby homeowner, who gave a copy of the video to the police by uploading it on YouTube and emailing it to the police. The video was used to identify McCoy and then “burned” to a DVD  and played at his trial.

State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Computer-Generated Report (Electronic Monitoring Device) – Foundation

Expert testimony isn’t necessary to lay a foundation for admissibility for a computer-generated EMD report:

¶28  Closing down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement of expert testimony is an extraordinary one.  

decision below: unpublished; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether admission into evidence of electronic monitoring daily summary reports requires expert testimony to lay a foundation as to accuracy and reliability.

Whether the daily summary reports fall outside the definition of hearsay because they don’t represent assertions made by a person.

Kandutsch, while under electronic monitoring,

State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line)

The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the witness from testifying.

¶39      Therefore,

State v. John D. Harris, 2009AP3140-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harris: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Testimony of an investigator relating the contents of a recording wasn’t inadmissible under the best evidence rule, § 910.02.

¶11 Although the best evidence rule generally requires an original recording to be played in court in order to prove the content of the recording,

State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78
For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly

Issue/Holding: Foundational requirement of probative value applies to computer-generated animation used as demonstrative exhibit to recreate crime scene:

¶17      Turning to probative value, we examine the State’s failure to lay a foundation for the admission of the animation.

State v. Walter William McCoy, 2007 WI App 15
For McCoy: Andrea Taylor Cornwall

Issue/Holding:

¶18   … We start by acknowledging that the chain of evidence in this case is not perfect. There are substantial time gaps as pointed out by McCoy. Nonetheless, the chain of custody evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was admissible. The standard for the admission of exhibits into evidence is that there must be a showing that the physical exhibit being offered is in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed.”  Moore,

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Testimony of a court employee that she had examined a certified copy of a foreign court order and that the exhibit to be admitted into evidence was a copy of that order sufficiently authenticated the exhibit, ¶¶29-32.

State v. Gary L. Gordon, 2002 WI App 53, affirmed, 2003 WI 69
For Gordon: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether proof-of-service documents, introduced to show defendant’s knowledge of a domestic violence injunction, violated the hearsay rule.

Holding:

¶43. … However, these documents were not made under oath or attested to in any way; thus, they were not affidavits.

State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

The State provides no authority to support the trial court’s imposition of a requirement that, as a matter of law, expert testimony is necessary to establish a foundation for video images, and we are aware of none. Wisconsin case law does not impose such a requirement for the admission of still photographs.