State v. Johnson
74 Wis. 2d 26, 245 N.W. 2d 687, 1976 Wisc. LEXIS 1304 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An admission by a party-opponent, which is defined as non-hearsay when offered against that party, does not create a corresponding right for that party to introduce their own self-serving, exculpatory out-of-court statements, which remain inadmissible hearsay.
Facts:
- David L. Johnson was the founder, president, and director of Midwestern Pacific Corporation from 1970 to 1972.
- During this period, Midwestern withheld state income taxes from its employees' wages.
- The corporation failed to deposit these withheld tax funds with the State of Wisconsin for multiple quarters and months.
- Midwestern's finances were managed through an arrangement with the First National Bank of Menasha, which required a bank officer to approve all disbursements from the company's accounts.
- The level of control Johnson personally had over the corporate funds to make the tax payments was a central point of dispute.
- Prior to his time at Midwestern, Johnson had been a high-level officer in three other corporations that also accumulated significant withholding tax deficiencies.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Wisconsin charged David L. Johnson in a Wisconsin trial court with eleven counts of willfully failing to deposit state withholding taxes.
- On the State's motion, one count was dismissed before the verdict.
- A jury trial was held, which resulted in a verdict of not guilty on one count and guilty on the remaining nine counts.
- The trial court entered an order of conviction and sentenced Johnson to concurrent six-month jail terms on five counts and probation on the remaining four.
- Johnson appealed the order of conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the evidentiary rule defining a party's admission as non-hearsay when offered by an opponent create a correlative right for that party to introduce their own self-serving, exculpatory statements through the same witness on cross-examination?
Opinions:
Majority - Connor T. Hansen, J.
No. A party's self-serving, out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are inadmissible hearsay and are not made admissible simply because the opposing party introduced an admission by that same party. The court distinguished between an 'admission by a party opponent' under sec. 908.01(4)(b)1, which is specifically defined as not hearsay, and a 'statement against interest,' which is a hearsay exception under sec. 908.045(4). The rationale for admitting a party's own statement when offered against them is that a party cannot complain about the inability to cross-examine themselves. This rationale does not apply to a party's self-serving statements, which are properly excluded as hearsay. The court also held that evidence of Johnson's association with prior companies that had tax delinquencies was admissible under sec. 904.04(2) for the limited purpose of proving knowledge and willfulness (absence of mistake or accident), not to prove character, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the critical evidentiary distinction between admissions by a party-opponent, which are treated as non-hearsay, and declarations against interest, which are hearsay exceptions. It clarifies that the rules of evidence are not symmetrical; the introduction of a party's inculpatory statement by the opposition does not 'open the door' for that party to introduce their own exculpatory hearsay. This prevents defendants from introducing their own unsworn, self-serving testimony into evidence through another witness, thereby avoiding cross-examination. The ruling also affirms the trial court's discretion to admit relevant evidence of prior acts to establish the defendant's mental state, a crucial tool for prosecutors in cases where intent is a key element.
