## Facts

- Johnson was charged in Wisconsin with willfully violating state tax law by failing to deposit employee income-tax withholdings owed by his company, Midwestern Pacific Corporation (Midwestern).
- The parties stipulated that Midwestern withheld the amounts alleged from employee wages during the charged periods and did not deposit those sums with the State of Wisconsin.
- A central dispute at trial was whether Johnson had enough control over Midwestern’s finances to be a “person required to withhold, account for, and pay over” the taxes.
- Evidence showed Midwestern’s finances were affected by outside involvement, including a bank’s role in approving disbursements and a guarantor’s financial influence, creating conflicting testimony about who controlled payments.
- The State called John Myron, an accountant who worked for Midwestern, and elicited testimony that Johnson told Myron he had not paid the taxes.
- On cross-examination, Johnson attempted to introduce another statement from the same conversation: that Johnson did not control Midwestern’s funds.
- The trial court sustained the State’s hearsay objection and excluded the additional, explanatory statement.
- Johnson was convicted and appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, challenging the evidentiary ruling and the sufficiency of proof that he was responsible for the tax payments.

## Issues

1. When the prosecution introduces part of a defendant’s out-of-court statement, must the court allow the defendant to introduce related portions of the same conversation that explain or qualify the part introduced, even if the additional portion would otherwise be hearsay?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to permit the jury to find that Johnson had enough control over Midwestern’s finances to be criminally responsible for willfully failing to deposit withheld taxes?
3. If excluding the additional portion of Johnson’s statement was error, did the error require reversal or was it harmless?

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by admitting the State’s selected portion of Johnson’s statement while excluding the related portion offered by the defense to explain the same subject.
- The court concluded the error was harmless because other trial evidence supported the jury’s finding on Johnson’s responsibility and there was no reasonable probability the verdict would have changed.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Johnson was a responsible person with enough control over corporate finances to fall within the statute.
- The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- When one party introduces part of a conversation or statement, the opposing party is entitled to introduce the remainder (or so much as is relevant) when needed for a full and fair understanding of the part already admitted.
- A defendant’s out-of-court statements offered by the prosecution qualify as admissions; fairness may require admitting related explanatory portions from the same exchange when the State presents only an inculpatory segment.
- A hearsay objection should not be used to leave the jury with a potentially misleading partial account of a single conversation on the same subject.
- An evidentiary error warrants reversal only if there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict (harmless-error review).
- For offenses based on willful failure to remit withheld taxes, criminal responsibility may extend to a corporate officer or agent who has significant control over corporate finances and the choice to pay or not pay the tax obligation; exclusive or unrestricted control is not required, and conflicts in the evidence are for the jury.

## Conclusion

State v. Johnson, 245 N.W.2d 687 (Wis. 1976), held that once the State introduced part of Johnson’s statement through the company accountant, the defense should have been allowed to introduce the related qualifying portion from the same conversation, but the exclusion was harmless on this record; the court also found sufficient evidence that Johnson had enough financial control to be responsible for the willful failure to deposit withheld taxes and therefore affirmed the conviction.


State v. Johnson, 245 N.W.2d 687 (1976)