State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Eugene Huntington, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner (Wisconsin 1998)

Summary

The court affirmed Huntington's convictions, holding that the child's statements to her mother, sister, and a police officer were admissible under the excited-utterance and residual hearsay exceptions. It further held that the mother's statements to a nurse practitioner were admissible for medical diagnosis or treatment, but that the nurse's repetition of statements made to a social worker was inadmissible hearsay within hearsay; the error was harmless. The court also concluded that the State's expert described behavior consistent with child sexual abuse victims rather than improperly vouching for the child's truthfulness. Justice Geske, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Bablitch, dissented because she would reject the broadened use of the excited-utterance and residual hearsay exceptions.

Holding

Admissibility of the child's statements to her mother and sister. The circuit court properly admitted the statements as excited utterances because the child was crying, hysterical, scared, and guilt-ridden when she disclosed the abuse, and the court reasonably determined that she remained under the stress or excitement caused by the abuse.

Admissibility of the child's statements to the police officer. The circuit court properly admitted the child's statements to the police officer as excited utterances because she remained emotionally distressed during the interview, repeatedly cried, and needed the interview to be stopped so she could regain her composure.

Residual hearsay exception. The child's statements to her mother, sister, and the police officer also satisfied the residual hearsay exception because the circumstances supplied sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

Hearsay within hearsay in the nurse practitioner's testimony. The mother's statements to the nurse practitioner were admissible because they were made in connection with obtaining medical diagnosis or treatment for the child, but the nurse practitioner's repetition of statements made by the social worker was inadmissible because the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception does not extend to statements made to counselors or social workers.

Expert testimony concerning the child's behavior and credibility. The expert's testimony was properly admitted because it addressed whether the child's delayed disclosure, difficulty at school, and inability to identify the exact number of incidents were consistent with the behavior of other child sexual-abuse victims, rather than stating that the child was truthful.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities