State v. Beauchamp

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 2011 · Evidence

333 Wis. 2d 1 (2011)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseDying declarationsPrior inconsistent statementsDue processhearsaydying declarationtestimonial hearsay

Facts

After being shot multiple times, Somerville told an EMT and a police officer that 'Marvin' shot him, clarifying that he meant 'big head Marvin' and describing the shooter as dark-skinned, bald, and having a big forehead. The circuit court found those statements admissible as dying declarations under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(3). Two women who had earlier given signed statements placing Beauchamp at the scene with a gun and identifying him as the shooter later testified that those inculpatory statements were lies coerced by police. At trial, the State used the women's prior inconsistent statements, admitted without objection, to impeach their recantations.

Issue

Whether admission of Somerville's unconfronted statements as dying declarations violated Beauchamp's confrontation rights under the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions, and whether admission of the recanting witnesses' prior inconsistent statements violated due process. Also, because no objection was made to the latter statements, whether the circuit court committed plain error or counsel was ineffective.

Rule

The Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of a dying declaration when that exception was recognized at common law at the time of the founding; the proper response to reliability concerns is impeachment, not per se exclusion. In Wisconsin, prior inconsistent statements may be admitted consistently with due process so long as the declarant testifies and is present and subject to cross-examination; a circuit court does not commit plain error by applying that controlling Wisconsin rule, and counsel is not ineffective for failing to urge adoption of a different test from another jurisdiction.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Madison, a man shot outside an apartment building was loaded into an ambulance after repeatedly saying, "I'm not going to make it." When a police sergeant asked who shot him, he answered, "Troy from the north side," and died minutes later in surgery. The defendant never had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him.

If the trial court finds the statement qualifies as a dying declaration under Wisconsin evidence law and assumes the statement is testimonial, should the statement be excluded under the Sixth Amendment?

Explanation. The majority held that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of a dying declaration when that exception was recognized at common law at the time of the founding. The court assumed testimonial status for purposes of analysis and still upheld admissibility. It rejected a separate reliability-balancing requirement and did not condition admissibility on forfeiture by wrongdoing.