On Point blog, page 10 of 11
§ 908.03(3), State of Mind
State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue: Whether statements made by the declarant to others describing various threats made by the defendant were admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception, § 908.03(3).
Holding:
¶60 Since there are no Wisconsin cases that have resolved this issue, we look to federal cases for guidance in applying the same rule.
Videotaped statement of Child, § 908.08(3)
State v. Robert L. Snider, 2003 WI App 172, PFR filed 8/22/03
For Snider: Timothy J. Gaskell
Issue: Whether a child-victim’s videotaped statement must satisfy all the conditions in § 908.08, or may instead satisfy the residual exception.
Holding:
¶12. We agree with the State that the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 908.08(7) permits the admission of a child’s videotaped statement under any applicable hearsay exception regardless of whether the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) have been met.
Hearsay – Recent Perception, § 908.045(2) — Generally; Aural Perception of Private Statement
State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding1:
¶51. The recent perception exception is similar to the hearsay exceptions for present sense impression and excited utterances, but was intended to allow more time between the observation of the event and the statement in cases where the declarant is unavailable and the evidence would otherwise be lost.
Business Record Exception, § 908.03(6) — Crime Lab Report
State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, reconsideration denied 2002 WI 118; on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a crime lab report is admissible under the business records exception, § 908.03(6).
Holding:
¶48. There can be little question that when state crime labs generate reports like those at issue here,
Hearsay – Authentication of Document
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.
Narrative Statement — Distinct Assertions — Admissibility Methodology
State v. Shelleen B. Joyner, 2002 WI App 250, PFR filed 10/24/02
For Joyner: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶18. Shelleen Joyner argues that Trudy Joyner’s statement is against her penal interest, however, because Trudy Joyner admitted that she “knowingly helped a robber escape.” We disagree. “[W]hen ruling upon a narrative’s admissibility … a court must break it down and determine the separate admissibility of each ‘single declaration or remark.’”
Hearsay – Residual Exception — Child Sexual Assault Victim
State ex rel. Willie C. Simpson v. Schwarz, 2002 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/11/02
Issue/Holding: Child-sexual-assault-victim’s hearsay statement in this revocation case satisfies test for admissibility under residual exception, State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis. 2d 226, 421 N.W.2d 77 (1988).
Hearsay – Against-Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4) — Declarant Unavailable, Due Diligence to Locate
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.
Hearsay – Against-Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4) — Right to Present
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.’”
Against-Penal Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4)
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.