01-3049 State v. Joyner

Listen to this article

“Inexplicably, the Dissent ignores that Shelleen Joyner’s ‘alibi’ was, to use the Dissent’s word, ‘torpedoed’ by her own statements to Officer Becker. Her admission to Officer Becker that she had ‘gone to that area on the east side to visit friends’ effectively sunk her alibi by itself-and would have even if the statements of the others had been excluded.”

Further, the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the “confession” of defendant’s sister to the effect that someone else had committed the robbery because it was not a statement against the sister’s penal interest.

“At trial, Shelleen Joyner’s attorney provided the trial court with a copy of Trudy Joyner’s confession, which included this statement. This statement, by itself, however, does not inculpate Trudy Joyner. She merely states that someone else, Werchowski, committed a crime, and, as we have seen, it impliedly relates that ‘Scrap’ was driving. Like the first part, it does not expose Trudy Joyner to criminal liability.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

DISSENTING OPINION: Schudson, J. The evidence in this trial included inadmissible hearsay-the statements of Trudy, Wendy, and Denise introduced through Officer Becker’s testimony-to which defense counsel did not object, that destroyed Joyner’s alibi defense. The evidence in this trial, however, did not include admissible hearsay-Trudy Joyner’s confession-which defense counsel attempted to introduce, exculpating Shelleen Joyner and implicating Trudy and Denise.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Margaret A. Maroney, Madison

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Marguerite M. Moeller, Madison