D. Hearsay

State v. Glenn H. Hale, 2005 WI 7, affirming, as modified, 2003 WI App 238 For Hale: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶53. A threshold question for applying the Crawford framework is whether the State is proffering “testimonial” hearsay evidence. …¶54. Because Sullivan’s hearsay evidence was “testimonial” in nature, we turn next to… Read more

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue: Whether the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness (“John”) – unavailable at trial after refusing to testify at that stage – was admissible under the confrontation clause… Read more

State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243 For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall Issue/Holding1: The confrontation clause doesn’t prohibit a witness from reading to the jury admissible medical records: ¶13      First, as we have seen, the certified medical records were received by the trial court without objection. Certainly, the jurors could have read the… Read more

State v. Boon Savanh, 2005 WI App 245 For Savanh: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding1: Statement of coconspirator during drug transaction, conveyed to jury via police informant buying drugs as part of controlled buy, not “testimonial”: ¶25      We do not think an objective witness would reasonably believe that Vongrasamy would have thought his informal telephone conversation… Read more

State v. Donavin Hemphill, 2005 WI App 248 N.B. The holding quoted below was overruled, in State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, ¶24n. 8. In other words, “a spontaneous statement to a police officer” is not, as a matter of law, non-testimonial. For Hemphill: Jeffrey Jensen Issue/Holding: An out-of-court statement by a witness… Read more

State v. Jermaine Smith, 2005 WI App 152, PFR filed For Smith: Glen B. Kulkoski Issue: Whether a co-actor’s in-custody pretrial statements were admissible as impeachment on rebuttal after the defense introduced a different hearsay statement by that declarant. Holding: ¶10      The State’s rebuttal was solely to impeach Nunn’s credibility under the provisions of Wis… Read more

State v. Robert Bintz, 2002 WI App 204, affirmed on habeas review, Robert Bintz v. Bertrand, 403 F.3d 859 (7th Cir 2005) For Bintz: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski Issue/Holding: Confessions to fellow inmates are sufficiently reliable to allow admissibility without confrontation. Issue/Holding: The codefendant’s (defendant’s brother) against-penal-interest statement to the police didn’t violate the confrontation clause… Read more