Summary
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the reverse-waiver procedure for a juvenile charged in adult criminal court. It held that the juvenile may present admissible contextual evidence at the reverse-waiver hearing but may not use that hearing to contradict the charged offense, and it identified evidentiary and procedural errors in the circuit court's decision to transfer jurisdiction. The court affirmed reversal of the transfer order, reversed the remand for a new reverse-waiver hearing, and remanded the case to adult criminal court for trial.
Holdings
- A juvenile at a reverse-waiver hearing must be given reasonable latitude to present admissible evidence relevant to the three statutory elements in Wis. Stat. § 970.032(2), including evidence supplementing the probable-cause facts to place the charged offense in context. The juvenile may not use the reverse-waiver hearing to contradict the offense charged; that challenge belongs at the preliminary examination.
- The Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, including the general prohibition on hearsay, apply at a reverse-waiver hearing unless the statute or context expressly provides otherwise. An expert may not serve as a conduit for inadmissible hearsay by presenting the defendant's account of the offense as substantive fact.
- The principles prohibiting expert testimony that vouches for a witness's truthfulness apply when an expert implicitly vouches for the truthfulness of an out-of-court declarant who did not testify. Dr. Beyer's testimony improperly vouched for Kleser's account.
- A juvenile waives the privilege against self-incrimination by placing the juvenile's account of the offense in issue through an expert acting as a surrogate. Principles of fair play then entitle the State to have its expert interview the juvenile about the same facts so that the State can rebut the defense presentation.
- A new reverse-waiver hearing was not appropriate because Kleser had received a full opportunity to present evidence, the record was adequate for decision, and the errors prejudiced the State rather than Kleser. The case therefore remained in adult criminal court for trial.
Questions Presented
- What evidence may be introduced at a reverse-waiver hearing under Wis. Stat. § 970.032(2), and may the juvenile introduce evidence supplementing the probable-cause facts?
- Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by substantively relying on Dr. Beyer's inadmissible hearsay testimony.
- Whether Dr. Beyer's testimony improperly vouched for the truthfulness of Kleser's out-of-court account.
- Whether the circuit court improperly prevented the State's psychologist from interviewing Kleser about the facts of the offense after the defense presented those facts through its expert.
- Whether remand for a new reverse-waiver hearing was appropriate.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (31)
- State v. Kleser, 2009 WI App 43, 316 Wis. 2d 825, 768 N.W.2d 230(followed in part; reversed in part)
- State v. Johnson, 2009 WI 57, 318 Wis. 2d 21, 767 N.W.2d 207(followed)
- State v. Verhagen, 198 Wis. 2d 177, 542 N.W.2d 189 (Ct. App. 1995)(followed)
- Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982)(followed)
- State v. Walters, 2004 WI 18, 269 Wis. 2d 142, 675 N.W.2d 778(followed)
- State v. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d 334, 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983)(followed)
- City of Madison v. DWD, 2003 WI 76, 262 Wis. 2d 652, 664 N.W.2d 584(followed)
- State v. Hezzie R., 219 Wis. 2d 848, 580 N.W.2d 660 (1998)(followed)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110(followed)
- State v. Williams, 198 Wis. 2d 516, 544 N.W.2d 406 (1996)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 31.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…