2009AP1351-CR State v. Kandutsch

Listen to this article

Evidence
Electronic monitoring devices

Gregg Kandutsch appeals a judgment of conviction for operating while under the influence of an intoxicant, fifth and subsequent offense. He claims the circuit court erroneously admitted daily summary reports from his electronic monitoring device at trial. He contends the reports are inadmissible because the State failed to present expert testimony establishing the reliability of the electronic monitoring system, and because the reports are hearsay. We conclude the reports were properly admitted because the State supplied sufficient evidence of the reports’ authenticity under Wis. Stat. §§ 909.01 and 909.015. We also conclude the reports are not statements made by a human declarant and are therefore not hearsay. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP1351-CR State v. Kandutsch

Dist III, Marathon County, Brady, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hirsch, Eileen A., Madison; For Respondent: Heimerman, Kenneth J., Wausau; Means, Steven P., Madison

Full Text