Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

6. Excited utterance

State v. Earnest Lee Nicholson, 2015AP2154-CR & 2015AP2155-CR, 3/7/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Nicholson challenges the validity of the no-contact order he was convicted of violating, and also argues his rights to confrontation and to testify were violated. The court of appeals rejects his claims. The no-contact order In… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Shironski A. Hunter, 2014AP2521-CR, District 1, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The trial court didn’t err in admitting statements witnesses made during a 911 call and to police at the scene of the crime because the statements were excited utterances. Moreover, the statements weren’t testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, so… Read More

{ 0 comments }

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Dion M. Echols, 2010AP2626-CR, District 1, 9/27/11 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Echols: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity Evidence held sufficient to establish “great bodily harm” element of 1st-degree sexual assault, § 940.225(1)(a), where the harm was inflicted a short time after the assault. ¶23      In this case, the trial court… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: ¶54      We agree with the State’s position that Price’s out-of-court statements were properly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

{ 0 comments }

Excited Utterance — General

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

{ 0 comments }

§ 908.03(2), Excited Utterance

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly Issue: Whether the declarant’s statement to another relating a threat by the defendant was admissible as an excited utterance, § 908.03(2). Holding: ¶65. We agree with the State that the first two elements of this exception are met… Read More

{ 0 comments }