On Point: 2. Against interest statements

Brown County v. Z.W.L., 2022AP2201, District 3, 9/12/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another hearsay-based sufficiency challenge to a Chapter 51 commitment, Z.W.L. (“Zeb”) succeeds because the circuit court relied on inadmissible hearsay and no other evidence established that Zeb was dangerous. Specifically, while Zeb made admissible “party-opponent” statements to a crisis worker and a police officer, the county failed to call either direct witness to Zeb’s statements and instead relied on two witnesses who read about Zeb’s history. While the circuit court relied on a case manager’s testimony because “this is what case managers are supposed to do” and “to me, that’s an exception to any of the hearsay rules,” the court of appeals disagrees.

State v. Christopher Deshawn McGinnis, 2017AP2224-CR, 3/5/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals found certain hearsay statements admissible under the “statement against penal interest” and “prior inconsistent statement” exceptions to the hearsay rule. It also held that part of a detective’s testimony qualified as hearsay, but its admission was harmless error.

State v. Devon A. Sheriff, 2009AP3095-CR, District 1, 11/16/10 

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sheriff: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Sheriff BiC; State Resp.

Sheriff, convicted at jury trial of participating in drug sale, unsuccessfully appeals trial judge’s refusal to admit into evidence codefendant’s statements.

¶12      We conclude that the statements that Sheriff sought to admit were properly excluded because they were irrelevant.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)

Statement against Interest, Exculpating Defendant
Against-interest statement exculpating defendant admissible. Declarant unavailable, given reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to subpoena. Contrary to trial court, statement not ambiguous but was direct admission of crime and corroborated by having been made to different people on different occasions.

State v. Patrick Jackson, 2007 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/07
For Jackson: Marcella De Peters

Issue/Holding:

¶20 Although finding that Natisha Watkins was unavailable as a witness because it permitted her to assert her Fifth Amendment right, the trial court excluded what Natisha Watkins told Papka because it determined that her statement that Carlos Williams and not Jackson handled the gun was not against her penal interest.

State v. Joseph J. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Guerard: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding:

¶23. The central issue in this case is the extent of corroboration required under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(4) for statements tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused. We addressed this issue at length in Anderson,

State v. Sherrie S. Tucker, 2003 WI 12, on certification
For Tucker: Paul LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32. At the postconviction hearing, the circuit court upheld its prior ruling that McCray’s statements were not admissible as either statements against penal interest or under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The circuit court noted that McCray’s statements attempted to exculpate Tucker without inculpating himself.

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Williams satisfied the unavailability requirement necessary to admit a declarant’s against-interest hearsay statement exculpating the defendant, § 908.045(4).

Holding: Unavailability is determined by § 908.04(1)(e), and requires a “good-faith effort” and due diligence” in attempting to secure the declarant’s presence, ¶62.

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue:/Holding: The exclusion of hearsay evidence proffered by the defense is tested under the “two-part framework” of State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, ¶51, or “whether the proffered evidence was ‘essential to’ the defense, and whether without the proffered evidence, the defendant had ‘no reasonable means of defending his case.’”

State v. Shelleen B. Joyner, 2002 WI App 250, PFR filed 10/24/02
For Joyner: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the pretrial statement of defendant’s sister, who failed to appear at trial, was admissible as a statement against penal interest, § 908.045(4).

Holding: A hearsay statement must be broken into its constituent parts, each viewed separately. ¶18. This statement has two parts.