Opinion ID: 1999621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inculpatory statement.

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting inculpatory statements made by the defendant without first finding that the statements were given voluntarily. The statements alleged to be inculpatory were revealed at trial by Officer Daryl O. Jensen, who questioned defendant prior to administering a lie detector test. On direct examination, he testified as follows: Q. What did [defendant] say? A. He stated that he left his apartment at Truax Field; had gone to the Lobby Tavern, and from the Lobby Tavern he went to his girl friend's house. He stayed there and then he went back to the Lobby Tavern. I then questioned him as to whether or not he drank anything during the day, and he stated that he had had a few beers, I believe, and a brandy, that he had one or something to that effect. I then questioned him if his girl friend was white or colored, and he stated that his girl friend was white. I asked him if he likedif he had many girl friends that were white, and he stated `Yes.' I asked him if he ever had sexual relations with a white girl and he said he never had been refused yet, and I said, `Except one,' and he stated, `Who is that?' and I said, `Jeanne Broomell.' He threw his hands in the air and he laughed and that was it. Q. Did he ever deny he had been refused by Jeanne Broomell? A. No, sir, he did not. No objections were made during this recital. On cross-examination, defense counsel elicited the following testimony: Q. Now, Sergeant Jensen, you hadyou had very brief facts in your possession at this time, right? A. That's right, sir. Q. And you had no facts in your possession to indicate that this Defendant had ever asked Jeanne Broomell for sexual relations, had you? A. No, sir. Q. And that was that we might call a leading or suggestive question of him then by you, was it? . . . A. [after objection] Yes, sir. Apparently, defendant assumes that his failure to deny that he had been refused sexual relations by Mrs. Broomell amounted to an admission. We do not agree. Here the defendant was not totally silent following the inquiry. His laughter could be considered by the jury to be as much a denial as an admission. Furthermore, defense counsel did not object to the statement at the time it was admitted into evidence, but rather chose to clarify the leading character of the inquiry and the fact that it was not based on facts within the knowledge of the officer. This would appear to have amounted to a strategic waiver of any objection to the admission of the statement. State v. Cole (1971), 50 Wis. 2d 449, 184 N. W. 2d 75. It is clear that the trial court did not err in admitting this testimony or in failing to grant a new trial based upon this objection.