2009AP1351-CR State v. Kandutsch

Listen to this article

Evidence
Electronic monitoring devices

Expert testimony is not required for admission of a report from an electronic monitoring device into evidence; and the report is not hearsay.

“We conclude that neither the EMD itself nor the report is so ‘unusually complex or esoteric’ that expert testimony was required to lay a foundation of accuracy and reliability.  The underlying technologies were clearly within the realm of lay comprehension.  Accordingly, the testimony of Agents Klarkowski and Williams was sufficient to provide a foundation for the report’s accuracy and reliability under Wis. Stat. § 909.01.”

“We further hold that a computer-generated report is not hearsay when it is simply the result of an automated process free from human input or intervention.

Because the report is not hearsay, it was subject only to the statutory authentication requirements, and was properly authenticated through the testimony of Agents Klarkowski and Williams.”

Affirmed.

2009AP1351-CR State v. Kandutsch

Prosser, J.

Attorneys: For Plainitff: Steven P. Means, Madison; For Defendant Eileen A. Hirsch, Madison.

Full Text