Opinion ID: 1921143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: record of criminal proceeding

Text: The circuit court held that the DNR did not properly submit the entire record to it as required by sec. 111.07 (7), Stats., because the record of the prior criminal proceeding was not included in that record. As indicated earlier, at the administrative hearing the respondent first moved and later requested that the examiner look into the transcript of the previous trial. Since the state objected, it was improper for the examiner to consider the previous transcript. Testimony of a former proceeding is hearsay, although an exception exists where the declarant at the previous hearing is unavailable to testify. [18] While administrative proceedings are not bound by the same strict rules of evidence as govern trials [19] this court has held that hearsay evidence not within another exception should not be received at an administrative hearing over objection where direct testimony as to the same facts is available. [20] Absent a showing that the witnesses at the earlier trial were unavailable it would have been error for the examiner to consider any prior testimony over the department's objection. It is difficult, too, to understand how he could have examined an untranscribed transcript. Since it would have been improper for the examiner to consider the prior testimony, the circuit court's dismissal of the DNR petition because of an incomplete record was erroneous. Normally, the error in rejecting the incomplete record would be irrelevant in light of the fact that the department failed to carry its burden of proof as to nonexistence of the bulkhead line. However, at the reargument on the petition for enforcement the court stated: Ordinarily the Court would exercise its discretion under Section 111.07 (7) to remand this matter to the Department for further proceedings and leave to adduce additional evidence. However, the court decided in its discretion not to do so in part because the state did not meet its obligation to make a proper record. Since the court mentioned the absence of the criminal record just prior to its statement concerning the state's failure to make a proper record, it apparently based its decision not to remand for further administrative proceedings in part on the erroneous view that the transcript of the criminal proceedings should have been a part of the record. Strictly speaking, the state does not, on appeal, challenge the circuit court's refusal to remand the case to the department for further hearings as an abuse of discretion. However, it does allege that the trial court was wholly in error in dismissing the petition on the grounds that the transcript was not included in the record. Since the state did in its petition for reargument move for remand for further taking of evidence and did submit an affidavit purporting to show the nonexistence of any bulkhead line, this case should be remanded to the circuit court for the further remand to the DNR. It must be remembered that the state, in preventing improper and detrimental encroachments on navigable waters, is protecting the public interest in maintaining what this court has labeled one of Wisconsin's most important natural resources. [21] In Hixon v. Public Service Comm. [22] we said: There are over 9,000 navigable lakes in Wisconsin covering an area of over 54,000 square miles. A little fill here and there may seem to be nothing to become excited about. But one fill, though comparatively inconsequential, may lead to another, and another, and before long a great body of water may be eaten away until it may no longer exist. Our navigable waters are a precious natural heritage; once gone, they disappear forever. Although the legislature has constitutionally permitted some structures and deposits in navigable waters, it permitted them under sec. 30.12 (2) (a), Stats., only if the Public Service Commission found that `such structure does not materially obstruct navigation ... and is not detrimental to the public interest.' In our opinion the Public Service Commission, in denying appellant's tardy application for a permit, carried out its assigned duty as protector of the overall public interest in maintaining one of Wisconsin's most important natural resources. (This function was transferred to the DNR.) Here, the DNR is to be given a further chance to submit evidence with respect to the bulkhead line in its effort to carry forward with its assigned duty as protector of the overall public interest in maintaining one of Wisconsin's most important natural resources. By the Court.  Order reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.