Evidence — attesting to truthfulness

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Evidence — attesting to truthfulness

It was not error to show the jury videotaped interrogation during which the officer accuses the defendant of lying.

“Like the detective’s statements in Smith, neither the purpose nor the effect of Primising’s statements in the video was to attest to Miller’s truthfulness. See id. Moreover, Primising’s statements present even less Haseltine concerns than the statements permitted in Smith because Primising’s statements were not made as sworn testimony. As the trial court observed, Primising’s statements amounted to an unsworn ‘interrogation technique.’ The video showing this technique and Miller’s responses to it provided the jury the necessary framework for understanding those responses. Indeed, at the time the video was played, the court made a point to instruct the jury that Primising’s statements to Miller were not being offered as true but to provide continuity for the entire interview.”

“In short, because Primising’s statements were not made as sworn testimony providing his opinion regarding the truth of Miller’s statements to the fact finder but were instead made in the context of a pretrial police investigation, the Haseltine rule was not violated and the trial court did not err by permitting the DVD to be played for the jury.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP901-CR State v. Miller

Dist. II, Fond du Lac County, English, J., Gundrum, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Guerard, Jeffrey J., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Wren, Christopher G., Madison; Kaminsky, Daniel, Fond du Lac