Opinion ID: 2655864
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of A.O.'s Audiovisual Recordings

Text: ¶66 On October 8, 2008, just six days after the filing of the criminal complaint, the State provided notice to Lopez of its intent to use the audiovisual recordings of A.O.14 The State sought admission of A.O.'s audiovisual recordings as the Audiovisual Recording of Child's Statement pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 908.08. Because A.O. was over 12 but under 16 years of age, the statute required that the circuit court find that the interests of justice warrant the admission of the recorded statement. Wis. Stat. § 908.08(3)(a)2. In weighing the admissibility of the recorded statement, the circuit court was required to consider the factors listed in § 908.08(4). ¶67 On September 18, 2009, the circuit court heard argument and deemed the audiovisual recordings admissible. The 14 At that time, only the October 6, 2008 recording had been made. On July 3, 2009, the State provided notice to Lopez of its intent to use the October 16, 2008 recording. 32 No. 2011AP2733-CR court specifically referenced Wis. Stat. § 908.08(4) in granting the motion: We're talking here about audio visual recordings of a statement of a child coming in under 908.08 of the statutes. More specifically, the statute indicates under the law that in this particular case, the audio visual statement can be used before the child's 16th birthday and if the interests of justice warrant its admission under sub-section (4) of the statutes. [A.O.] is fifteen now, I believe. So, she meets the first criteria. ¶68 The circuit court began its discussion of how the audiovisual recordings met the requirements for admission by noting that the court had personally viewed the recordings: I've viewed the video tapes, as I've indicated, in this matter. Although the child does have the capacity to verbalize about them, my sense of recollection from looking at those tapes was that she was, first of all, more comfortable talking in Spanish than she was in English regarding these. ¶69 The court then discussed how the recordings satisfied Wis. Stat. § 908.08(4)(a): She certainly has the chronological age and level of development, capacity to understand the significance of the events. ¶70 The court went further, addressing her physical and mental health, as required by Wis. Stat. § 908.08(4)(b): She seemed to be, despite the allegations that were put forth by the State and as a result of what I saw on the tape, physically and mentally healthy enough to testify both in person and as was presented on the tape, particularly since she's now been living in a different environment. 33 No. 2011AP2733-CR ¶71 The court also discussed the factors in Wis. Stat. § 908.08(4)(c), (d), and (e), including the alleged criminal assault by a family member and its emotional impact on A.O.: The events about which this child's statement is made certainly constitute, assuming she is believed, the criminal or antisocial conduct perpetrated against the child. And that [A.O.] had a close emotional relationship with the defendant in this matter. And the conduct constitutes a battery at [a] minimum, and the allegations clearly are physical abuse. And its duration and the extent of that are set forth in the tape. I think that it's also fairly clear here that the child's emotional relationship to those involved in the underlying proceeding were set forth in the tape. Her behavior or reaction to the previous events that occurred to her were all set forth as I looked at the tape. ¶72 The court also explained its consideration of Wis. Stat. § 908.08(4)(f), (g), and (h), and A.O.'s manifestations in the interview: There are other considerations set forth in the statute that I did take into account as well. The child's behavior, attitude, demeanor during the course of the interview I took into account. How the child responded to various questions. And when I say how, I don't mean the substance of the answers other than that they were related to the questions that were asked but whether or not she seemed hysterical or straightforward in her presentation, things of that type. Whether or not she evinced any signs of fear, guilt, anxiety, stress and so forth. ¶73 The court determined that the recordings were reliable and deemed them admissible: I found the tapes to be pretty much straightforward. They were interviewed. The person conducting the interview attempted to put [A.O.] at ease as much as possible. Explained the purpose of 34 No. 2011AP2733-CR the proceedings. [A.O.] clearly understood the difference between truth and lying. She will be testifying as well in this matter. I believe that under the considerations that the Court needs to look at, that allowing the audio visual tapes to be introduced is appropriate. However, [A.O.] would need to testify first. ¶74 Finally, the court reemphasized that the video recordings were trustworthy: The videotape also, as I've indicated, clearly shows the understanding on the part of the child regarding the importance of telling the truth and that the content, circumstances of the statement contained within the tape on their face provide an indicia of trustworthiness. ¶75 Having ruled that the audiovisual recordings of A.O. were admissible under Wis. Stat. § 908.08, the court then addressed, presumably in response to argument from Lopez's attorney, the admissibility of the recordings as prior consistent statements: And I believe these tapes then come in under 908.01 sub (4)(a)2, which provides that a prior consistent statement of a witness is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross- examination; the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony, which I assume it will be; and the statement is offered to rebut any express or implied charge against the declarant of a fabrication or improper influence or motive. In addition to being allowed by statute, there is case law that allows the tapes to be used in that regard. I would simply note to the parties that one of the more recent cases was Ansani vs. Cascade Mountain, Inc., at 223 Wis. 2d 39. That's a 1998 case. Although it is unclear whether the court's determination regarding admissibility of the recordings as a prior consistent 35 No. 2011AP2733-CR statement was proper, the fact remains that the court first properly deemed the recordings admissible pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 908.08. ¶76 The court's intent to admit the audiovisual recordings under Wis. Stat. § 908.08 can be found elsewhere in the record. During the pretrial proceedings, the court referenced the importance of conducting a timely trial so that this evidence could be admitted under § 908.08. For example, in response to a July 2009 request by Lopez's third attorney to withdraw as counsel, the court stated I realize May of next year is still ten months away. But, at that point in time, the alleged victim in this matter would be turning sixteen, which would impact on the use of the Safe Harbor tapes. At that time, the court refused to allow further delay in the proceedings. The court's concerns regarding a delay reflect that A.O.'s sixteenth birthday would impact the admission of this evidence under § 908.08. The court's admission determination was not focused on admission of the recordings as prior consistent statements. Appellate courts are not quick to reverse a reasoned evidentiary determination of the circuit court. See, e.g., State v. Ringer, 2010 WI 69, ¶24, 326 Wis. 2d 351, 785 N.W.2d 448. ¶77 In sum, the State clearly gave notice that it sought to admit the audiovisual recordings of A.O. under Wis. Stat. § 908.08. The court made clear on the record that it deemed the recordings admissible under § 908.08. The record demonstrates that the State had every intention of introducing this powerful audiovisual evidence at Lopez's trial under that section. In 36 No. 2011AP2733-CR fact, the State introduced the recordings at Olivas' trial under § 908.08. Regardless of the court's earlier comment that the recordings come in under 908.01 sub (4)(a)2, the court clearly deemed the recordings admissible under § 908.08, and it understood that A.O. turning 16 years old would impact their admissibility. Thus, once A.O. turned 16 years old the State's most compelling piece of evidence was no longer admissible at trial in the same way, if at all. The fact that the State would be precluded from introducing the recorded statements of the child victim under § 908.08 is of great significance to a substantial prejudice analysis.