State v. Beauchamp
2011 WI 27
| Wis. | 2011Background
- Somerville died after a gunshot on a Milwaukee street; before dying he identified the shooter as “Marvin” with a dark complexion, bald head, and large forehead.
- Beauchamp was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide with a dangerous weapon; he challenged admission of Somerville’s statements and two recanting witnesses’ statements.
- Circuit court admitted Somerville’s statements under the dying-declaration exception and the two recanting witnesses’ statements under the prior inconsistent statement rule.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s rulings on both issues.
- This Wisconsin Supreme Court majority held the dying-declaration exception does not violate the Confrontation Clause and the Wisconsin Constitution; it refused to adopt a Vogel-like test for prior inconsistent statements.
- The court affirmed the court of appeals; the total conclusions rest on Crawford, Giles, and Bryant analyses and Wisconsin evidentiary rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Somerville’s dying-declaration statements violated confrontation rights | Beauchamp argues unconfronted statements violate Crawford | Beauchamp contends dying declarations should be excluded | No Confrontation Clause violation; dying-declaration admitted under common-law tradition |
| Whether Somerville’s statements were testimonial and thus constrained by Crawford | Beauchamp contends testimonial status triggers Crawford bar | State argues non-testimonial or permissible under evolving standards | Assumed testimonial for analysis but still admissible under dying-declaration exception and Crawford framework |
| Whether recanting witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements violated due process | Beauchamp seeks Vogel multi-factor test; claims due process breach | State argues present cross-examination suffices under Wisconsin law | Wisconsin standard (present and cross-examination) controls; Vogel not adopted; no due process error |
| Whether failure to object to admission of prior statements was plain error or prejudicial | Beauchamp claims plain error or Machner hearing warranted | State disputes and notes no prejudice | No plain error; no Machner-remand required; admission proper under Wisconsin law |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) ( Confrontation Clause requires testing reliability via cross-examination for testimonial statements)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture and dying declarations analyzed under common-law pedigree at founding)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (2011) (primary purpose/duty to assess ongoing emergency; non-testimonial findings)
- Robinson v. State, 102 Wis. 2d 343, 349 (1981) (due-process review for unobjected evidence uses standard test for cross-examination availability)
- Vogel v. Percy, 691 F.2d 843 (7th Cir. 1982) (multi-factor test for admissibility of substantive prior inconsistent statements)
- Jackson v. State, 81 Wis. 127, 131 (1892) (historical basis for dying declarations in the Wisconsin Constitution context)