State v. Jason S. VanDyke, 2015 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs) In this prosecution for reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, VanDyke’s right to confrontation was violated where the medical examiner relied on the toxicology report of an out-of-state drug testing lab to conclude the victim had died of a heroin overdose, the… Read more
j. “Testimonial” Evidence
State v. Albert Lorenzo Finch, Sr., 2014AP744-CR, District 1, 10/7/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Dodging an issue that has not been addressed in Wisconsin, the court of appeals assumes that even if the admission of the recording of a 911 call violated Finch’s right to confrontation the error was harmless because there was… Read more
Questions presented: 1. Does an individual’s obligation to report suspected child abuse make that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause? 2. Do a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause? Lower… Read more
Court of appeals certification; case activity Issue certified: Is an OWI defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him violated when a supervisor of the state crime lab testifies that a lab report prepared and certified by another, but unavailable, lab analyst establishes the defendant’s illegal blood alcohol concentration? Does it make a difference that the… Read more
On review of published decision; case activity Confrontation — bases of expert opinion as “testimonial” hearsay Issue (Composed by On Point) When a State Crime Lab technician concludes there is a DNA match between defendant and assailant based in part on a report of a DNA profile prepared by an outside lab, is the outside lab… Read more
State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller, 2012 WI App 89, supreme court review granted 1/14/13; affirmed, 2013 WI 75; case activity A report from an “outside” lab (Orchid Cellmark) relied on by a State Crime Lab technician for “investigative” purposes in developing a DNA match between defendant and assailant wasn’t “testimonial,” therefore didn’t violate confrontation: ¶1… Read more
State v. Matthew Owen Hoff, Jr., 2011AP2096-CR, District 3, 6/26/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity ¶19 Here, before arresting Hoff, Gostovich observed him sleeping behind the wheel of a running car that was parked horizontally against the vertical parking stalls. Hoff did not awake to Gostovich’s shouting or knocking. When he finally awoke, he was… Read more
Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, 6/18/12, affirming People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 939 N.E. 268 A split Court (4-1-4) upholds against Confrontation objection, admissibility of expert testimony that a DNA profile, produced by a different lab, matched Williams’ profile. Because the rationale favoring admissibility doesn’t earn a clear majority of votes, the opinion… Read more
