State v. Manuel

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed Antwan B. Manuel’s convictions, including attempted first-degree homicide. The court held that a witness’s statements to his girlfriend were admissible under Wisconsin’s statement-of-recent-perception hearsay exception and were nontestimonial under Crawford v. Washington. Applying Ohio v. Roberts to the nontestimonial statements, the court concluded that their admission did not violate Manuel’s confrontation rights and that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach the witness with prior convictions.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by admitting Stamps's statements under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2).
2. Stamps's statements to Rhodes were nontestimonial under each of the three formulations identified in Crawford v. Washington.
3. Nontestimonial hearsay remains subject to Confrontation Clause scrutiny, and Ohio v. Roberts is retained as the governing test for such statements under the federal and Wisconsin constitutions.
4. The statement-of-recent-perception exception is not firmly rooted, but Stamps's statements were admissible because they contained particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
5. Trial counsel was deficient for failing to impeach Stamps with his four prior convictions, but Manuel was not prejudiced and therefore did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Stamps's statements to Rhodes were admissible under Wisconsin's statement-of-recent-perception hearsay exception.
2. Whether admission of the statements violated Manuel's confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment and Article I, section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
3. Whether nontestimonial hearsay remains subject to Confrontation Clause scrutiny under Ohio v. Roberts after Crawford v. Washington.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Stamps with the number of his prior convictions.

Disposition

affirmed