## Facts

- Julie Jensen died on December 3, 1998, from ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisoning.
- The State alleged Mark D. Jensen intentionally poisoned Julie to end the marriage and pursue another relationship.
- In the weeks before her death, Julie told neighbor Tadeusz Wojt she feared Jensen was trying to poison or inject her; she found syringes and described Jensen pressuring her to drink wine.
- Julie gave Wojt an envelope and instructed him to deliver it to police if anything happened to her.
- About two weeks before her death, Julie left voicemails for Pleasant Prairie Police Officer Ron Kosman stating she thought Jensen was trying to kill her.
- When Kosman visited, Julie said she had seen suspicious entries in Jensen’s day planner and internet activity; she said she photographed planner pages and gave the photos and a letter to a neighbor.
- A prior Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the same prosecution classified Julie’s statements to police (including the letter) as testimonial and her statements to Wojt and a teacher as nontestimonial, and remanded for a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing determination.
- On remand, the circuit court found forfeiture by wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence and admitted Julie’s statements; Jensen was tried and convicted of first-degree intentional homicide.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting Julie’s out-of-court statements, including a letter and statements to law enforcement, violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause notwithstanding forfeiture by wrongdoing.
2. Whether the circuit court committed reversible error in evidentiary rulings, including admission of expert or other inculpatory evidence, and in jury instructions or trial procedure.
3. Whether cumulative error denied Jensen a fair trial or the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that the circuit court implemented the controlling remand framework and properly relied on forfeiture by wrongdoing to admit Julie’s statements over confrontation objections.
- The court rejected claims of evidentiary and instructional error, finding no reversible abuse of discretion and no misleading instructions when viewed as a whole.
- The court rejected cumulative-error arguments because it found no prejudicial individual errors.
- The court held the evidence, viewed most favorably to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Forfeiture by wrongdoing permits admission of a declarant’s out-of-court statements, including otherwise testimonial statements, when the defendant caused the declarant’s unavailability; the predicate forfeiture finding is made by a preponderance of the evidence.
- When forfeiture by wrongdoing is established, the defendant may not exclude the declarant’s statements on Confrontation Clause grounds.
- Law-of-the-case principles constrain relitigation of issues resolved in earlier appellate decisions within the same prosecution; lower courts must apply the prior mandate on remand.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion; a conviction will not be reversed absent prejudicial error.
- Jury instructions are assessed as a whole; they are sufficient if they correctly state the law and do not mislead the jury.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed Jensen’s first-degree intentional homicide conviction, holding that the circuit court’s forfeiture-by-wrongdoing finding defeated Confrontation Clause objections to Julie’s statements and that Jensen’s remaining evidentiary, instructional, cumulative-error, and sufficiency challenges did not warrant reversal.


State v. Jensen, 331 Wis. 2d 440, 794 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010)