State v. Rodriguez, 2024AP481, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude relevant, but inadmissible, evidence at refusal hearing because witness lacked personal knowledge.
Rodolfo Rodriguez sought at his refusal hearing to cross-examine Police Officer A regarding Police Officer’s B’s interactions with him during a traffic stop. When Officer A testified that he did not hear Officer B’s and Rodriguez’s conversation, Rodriguez sought to play Officer B’s body camera to allow Officer A to hear what was said. Rodriguez argued the evidence was relevant to show that Officer B provided misleading information regarding his rights and obligations to submit to chemical testing for intoxication, and his refusal was therefore proper. The circuit court sustained the State’s objection for relevance. Rodriguez then questioned Officer A regarding what information Officer B provided him. The circuit court again sustained the State’s objection as to relevance. Officer B did not testify. The circuit court found Rodriguez did not have good cause to refuse to submit to chemical testing and suspended his driver’s license for two years.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision to exclude Officer B’s body camera footage and to prevent Rodriguez from cross-examining Officer A regarding Officer B’s conversation with him. Although the Court considered evidence as to whether Rodriguez was misled relevant, the evidence was inadmissible because the witness lacked personal knowledge. (¶ 14). See Wis. Stat. § 906.02.
The Court concluded: “Here, the relevant evidence Rodriguez sought to introduce was that [Officer B] had provided him with additional information that was misleading. However, Rodriguez attempted to introduce this information through [Officer A], who testified he did not have personal knowledge about whether [Officer B] had provided Rodriguez with any additional information. The circuit court therefore did not err in sustaining the State’s objection that this line of questioning (including the attempt to introduce what was purportedly [Officer B’s] body camera video through [Officer A’s] testimony) was outside [Officer A’s] knowledge.” (¶ 14).
The Court noted that, although not raised by the State to support its objection, Officer A’s testimony regarding Officer B’s conversation with Rodriguez was also inadmissible hearsay. (¶ 14 n.9).
