On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA affirms OWI conviction at trial, finding that nontestifying witness’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial and defendant not subjected to custodial interrogation.
State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.
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]:
¶29 … As this court summarized in Weed, for a statement to fit recent perception exception, it must pass the following three criteria:
(1) the statement was not made in response to the instigation of a person engaged in investigating,
Hearsay – Recent Perception, § 908.045(2)
State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding:
¶16. Weed argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement regarding unloading the .357 because the statement did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2). Weed principally argues that Michael’s statement was inadmissible under the exception due to the lack of a proper foundation;
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.