2009AP1540-CR – 2009AP1543-CR State v. Baldwin

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Confrontation Clause; forfeiture by wrongdoing

Where the defendant made numerous telephone calls to the victim to dissuade her from testifying against him, admission of her statements to police does not violate the Confrontation Clause.

“Here, the trial court ruled that the State had met its burden of proving forfeiture by wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence because it demonstrated that ‘the defendant, Scottie Baldwin, has intimidated the State’s witness, R[.]Z[.], from attending court to testify against him at trial.’ (Emphasis added.) At the time of the trial court’s ruling, Giles had not been decided and Jensen, with its broader view of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, required only that the defendant prevent the witness from appearing. Despite Jensen’s broader interpretation of the doctrine, in a prescient decision, the trial court went beyond finding that Baldwin’s actions satisfied that more lenient holding in Jensen and found that Baldwin’s actions satisfied the yet-to-be-decided Giles holding. Whether the trial court was aware of the dissent in Jensen, or whether the trial court acted on its own judicial instincts, the trial court made the correct legal finding, namely, that Baldwin’s intent was to prevent R.Z. from testifying at trial.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP1540-CR – 2009AP1543-CR State v. Baldwin

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Fiorenza, J., Brennan, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Haney, Robert E., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; O’Neil, Aaron R., Madison

Full Text