¶16. Weed argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement regarding unloading the .357 because the statement did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2). Weed principally argues that Michael’s statement was inadmissible under the exception due to the lack of a proper foundation; specifically, that the Fuerbringers could not testify as to the day Michael unloaded the gun. We are not persuaded.
¶17. First, we note that Michael’s statement was not made in response to any pending or anticipated investigation or litigation and appeared to be made in good faith. Michael’s comment was made to his good friend, Fuerbringer, and Fuerbringer’s son after Weed attempted to engage in dangerous behavior; namely, driving while intoxicated.
¶18. Second, Michael’s statement described an event–taking the bullets out of the .357–that was recently perceived by Michael. Both Fuerbringer and his son testified that they thought the reason Michael stated that he took the bullets out of the gun was because of Weed’s recent suicide attempt. … Thus, even though the Fuerbringers could not testify as to the exact date Michael allegedly took the bullets out of the gun, it appears that it would have been within, at the most, eight days.
¶20. Third, the statement appears to have been made when Michael’s recollection was clear….
The majority disputes the concurrence’s contention that it is overruling State v. Stevens, 171 Wis. 2d 106, 450 N.W.2d 753 (Ct. App. 1992). ¶21 n. 6. Nonetheless, the point of the concurrence is that corroboration is necessary for a statement of recent perception, while the majority specifically rejects that idea: “We further note that corroboration in and of itself does not determine the admissibility of a hearsay statement under the recent perception exception.” Id.