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
6. Confrontation, 6th Am.
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue: Whether the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness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. Kevin D. James, 2005 WI App 188 For James: Terry W. Rose Issue/Holding: The mere fact that § 908.08 imposes a mandatory protocol (videotape admitted into evidence first; child called to testify afterward) violates neither confrontation, ¶¶10-14, nor separation-of-powers, ¶¶15-25, doctrines.This statutory procedure allows the State to introduce a child’s videotaped statement, with… Read more
State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238 For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Pretrial videotaped statement, § 908.08(5), doesn’t violate confrontation when the person actually testifies, ¶24… 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
