Court Opinion

ID: 9594918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:33:58.363599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:06.427129
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(dissenting). Reluctantly I must conclude the facts do not come under Rule 512 (b) of the Model Code of Evidence. This statement of the rule adopted in Rudzinski v. Warner Theatres (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 241, 114 N. W. 2d 466, is declaratory of the case law in Wisconsin. The rule requires the declarant *401to be “under the stress of a nervous excitement caused by his perception of the event or condition which the statement narrates or describes or explains.” Although I give the term “nervous excitement” the broad meaning found in our prior cases of a “stimulus produced by the event and which is still operating,” and “perception” the meaning of participation, I do not find the requisite conditions are met to admit the deceased’s statement as an exception to the hearsay rule and forego the safeguards of cross-examination.
Res gestae in Wisconsin is somewhat of a catch-all phrase. Basically it means when an utterance is spontaneous, unreflected, and made contemporaneously with the force of the act or event which produced it, the utterance is admissible. However, the unreflecting spontaneity of a contemporaneous statement does not necessarily insure against faulty perception or inaccurate use of language to describe the event. But this risk of inaccuracy is taken when the exception is recognized. In any event, a spontaneous remark by its nature is unreflective and is made in response to some event sufficiently jarring to the declarant to elicit or provoke a natural, unthinking, undeliberative remark. These conditions are considered psychologically sufficient to insure truth or the conformity of speech to the mental or perceptive state because no opportunity is given the mind to direct the contents of the utterance. Without these attributes, the remark lacks the basis of the reason for the exception to the hearsay rule and the trustworthiness of the statement must then be subject to oath and cross-examination. Pocquette v. Carpiaux (1952), 261 Wis. 840, 52 N. W. 2d 787; Andrews v. United States Casualty Co. (1913), 154 Wis. 82, 142 N. W. 487; Cohodes v. Menominee & Marinette Light & Traction Co. (1912), 149 Wis. 308, 135 N. W. 879.
When the jarring effect or shock of the event is so great to the declarant that it can be said his statement *402although made after the event still proceeds as a natural impulse or as a natural unreflected reaction thereto, its spontaneity may be substituted for the contemporaneous time requirement of the exception. Krasno v. Brace (1951), 259 Wis. 12, 47 N. W. 2d 314; Kressin v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. (1928), 194 Wis. 480, 215 N. W. 908. See also Johnson v. State (1906), 129 Wis. 146, 108 N. W. 55; Andrzejewski v. Northwestern Fuel Co. (1914), 158 Wis. 170, 148 N. W. 37; Shiefel v. State (1923), 180 Wis. 186, 192 N. W. 386.
An utterance made after there has been an opportunity to reflect is inadmissible. The lapse of time within which reflection might take place is proportionate to the degree of intensity of the stimulating event and varies in each case. Andrzejewski v. Northwestern Fuel Co., supra.
There is no evidence of when Cossette allegedly fell and his utterance was not contemporaneous with the event and was not spontaneous. The majority of the court reasons the serious injury to Cossette gives rise to a reasonable inference of stress or shock which was still effective when he made this statement. But his utterance was not responsive to the event. It was not impulsive, instinctive, or spontaneous but was made in response to a question. While an answer to a question may be spontaneous within the meaning of the exception, I think it is a factor to be considered. Even though the alleged fall would have been startling and the injury effective as a stimulus, we have no direct evidence of the time lapse or of Cossette’s mental condition to indicate he had not or could not reflect upon his condition.
In Hupfer v. National Distilling Co. (1903), 119 Wis. 417, 96 N. W. 809, we stated utterances must not be in the' nature of a narration of the facts after the event has fully transpired, or the fruit of memory, or the result of the possibility of fabrication after opportunity to deliberate. See also Voigt v. Voigt (1964), 22 Wis. 2d 573, 126 N. W. *4032d 543. From the record, we can only speculate that Cos-sette was in such pain or shock that he could not deliberate or think. I must reluctantly take the position the statement of Cossette was inadmissible as a narration after the event and was not proved to be spontaneous, unreflective, or the result of stress or force of the alleged event to which it related.