Criminal Procedure — confrontation clause

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — confrontation clause

It did not violate the Confrontation Clause, in a prosecution for reckless homicide caused by the delivery of heroin, where the physician who performed the autopsy testified at trial that in his medical opinion, the victim died from a heroin overdose.

“As seen from our extensive review of Dr. Tranchida’s testimony, he was no mere conduit for the toxicology report; rather, he fully explained why he, based on his education and experience, honed in on heroin as the cause of the victim’s death: the fresh elbow punctures, the ‘white frothy foam’ that extended ‘down deep into [the victim’s] airways, his trachea and his bronchi,’ that the victim’s lungs were ‘full of fluid,’ and the victim’s inordinate retention of urine. It was perfectly reasonable and consistent with both WIS. STAT. RULE 907.03 and Heine’s right to confront his accusers, for Dr. Tranchida to take into account the toxicology report in firming up his opinion as to why the victim died. Heine was fully able to confront Dr. Tranchida and challenge his opinion and his supporting reasons. See WIS. STAT. RULE 907.05 set out in footnote 5. Heine was not deprived of his right to confrontation, and the trial court’s receipt of the toxicology report into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because, as we have already noted, Dr. Tranchida could have given his opinion exactly as he gave it without referring to the report.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP1022-CR State v. Heine

Dist. IV, Dane County, Genovese, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Bosben, Gina Frances, Madison; For Respondent: Tarver, Sandra L., Madison; Moeser, Matthew, Madison