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]: Assuming that an out of court statement first satisfies a hearsay rule (¶23), it does not implicate the “core” concern of the confrontation clause unless the statement is considered “testimonial” under… Read more
j. “Testimonial” Evidence
State v. Daniel D. King, 2005 WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: An interview by a detective of the victim at a hospital shortly after the charged assault, admitted into evidence as an excited utterance, is deemed “testimonial” (and, therefore, inadmissible under the confrontation clause) because it involved “response(s) to ‘structured police… Read more
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]: The two-part analysis of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) survives Crawford for use in determining Confrontation Clause admissibility of nontestimonial statements, ¶¶54-61 (unavailable declarant, and adequate indicia of reliability)… 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State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue: Whether the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness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. 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. 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
