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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.