State v. Jensen, 794 N.W.2d 482

Background

Jensen was convicted of first‑degree intentional homicide of his wife Julie Jensen and appeals the conviction.
Background summarizes prior proceedings: complaint in 2002, preliminary hearing in spring 2002, and information filed; Julie expressed fear of poisoning and noted suspicious behavior by Jensen.
Julie’s communications to neighbors and authorities included a letter and voicemails suggesting Jensen’s potential involvement and planning behaviors; some statements were challenged for hearsay under Crawford and related doctrines.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court remanded for a forfeiture by wrongdoing determination to decide if Jensen caused Julie’s unavailability to testify, foreclosing confrontation reversal on testimonial statements.
On remand, the circuit court admitted disputed evidence based on a preponderance of the evidence; trial proceeded with extensive corroborating, untainted evidence of murder.
The trial record included strong nonhearsay evidence such as computer searches for poisons, motive evidence, and a pattern of emotional manipulation, supporting the verdict despite challenged testimonial items.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of Giles on forfeiture by wrongdoing	Jensen contends Giles narrows forfeiture, excluding testimonial evidence unless intentional prevention.	State argues broad application remains viable for non-testimonial statements under the prior Wisconsin standard.	Giles narrows to testimonial statements excluded; non-testimonial may be admitted under broad forfeiture logic.
Harmless error for testimonial statements admitted	Admission of Julie's testimonial statements taints the conviction.	Evidence should be reviewed for harmless error given other evidence.	Assumed error in admitting testimonial evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to strong corroboration.
Admissibility of 'other acts' evidence	Pornographic photos and related conduct were probative of motive and context.	Certain categories of other acts evidence were improper.	All challenged 'other acts' categories were properly admitted as motive/context or panorama evidence under Sullivan and related rules.
Scope of consent to search and seizure of electronic media	Consent limited to papers; electronics were beyond scope.	Consent authorized seizure of electronic storage media.	Consent to search permitted seizure of computers and storage media; no Fourth Amendment violation for scope.
Judicial bias and due process	Pretrial forfeiture finding biased the trial.	No evidence of bias; waiver and de novo review apply.	Argument waived; even if reviewed, no reversible bias shown; conviction affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (Supreme Court, 2008) (forfeiture narrows to intent and applies only to testimonial statements)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial hearsay rule)
State v. Williams, 256 Wis. 2d 56 (Wis. 2002) (harmless/error and confrontation analysis framework)
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (Wis. 1998) (three-part test for admissibility of other acts evidence)
State v. Johnson, 184 Wis. 2d 324 (Wis. 1994) (panorama evidence concept; contextual relevance of other acts)
State v. Manuel, 281 Wis. 2d 554 (Wis. 2005) (Confrontation Clause evaluation of non-testimonial statements)
State v. Stuart, 279 Wis. 2d 659 (Wis. 2005) (harmless error framework and appellate standards)
State v. Johnson (concurrence et al.), 184 Wis. 2d 324 (Wis. 1994) (panorama/panorama-type evidence discussion)