State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: ¶54 We agree with the State’s position that Price’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. In talking to Officer Langendorf, Price was describing a startling event——his encounter… Read more
H. Hearsay, Ch. 908
State v. Patrick Jackson, 2007 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/07 For Jackson: Marcella De Peters Issue/Holding: ¶20 Although finding that Natisha Watkins was unavailable as a witness because it permitted her to assert her Fifth Amendment right, the trial court excluded what Natisha Watkins told Papka because it determined that her statement that Carlos… Read more
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8 For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶48 Here, Adams’ statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance hearsay exception. Adams spontaneously made the statements, without police prompting, under the stress of watching her cousin being taken into custody at gunpoint. It was only one to two… Read more
State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the defendant’s brother testified that the non-testifying complainant had recanted, the prosecution could impeach the brother with the possibility that the complainant was motivated by fear due to the brother’s gang affiliation, ¶31: “A witness’s… Read more
State v. Derek Anderson, 2005 WI 54, on certification For Anderson: Neil C. McGinn, SPD, Milwaukee Trial; Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶59 We agree with the State that while Krnak’s statement to Ellifson does not technically qualify as an excited utterance, or statement of recent perception due to timing problems, it does… 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]: ¶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… Read more
State v. Boon Savanh, 2005 WI App 245 For Savanh: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶32, n. 4: A statement made by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is not a hearsay “exception”; it expressly is not hearsay. Wis. Stat. § 908.01(4)(b)5. (2003-04). While hearsay “exemption” is a more appropriate term, statements made under this subsection… 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
