908.02 Hearsay rule. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules adopted by the supreme court or by statute.

History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R248 (1973).

The rule of completeness requires that a statement, including otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay, be admitted in its entirety when necessary to explain an admissible portion of the statement. The rule is not restricted to writings or recorded statements. State v. Sharp, 180 Wis. 2d 640, 511 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1993).

Prisoner disciplinary hearings are governed by administrative rules that permit consideration of hearsay evidence. State ex rel. Ortega v. McCaughtry, 221 Wis. 2d 376, 585 N.W.2d 640 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2972.

As long as motive and opportunity have been shown and there is also some evidence to directly connect a 3rd person to the crime charged that is not remote in time, place, or circumstances, the evidence should be admissible. State v. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, 265 Wis. 2d 278, 666 N.W.2d 881, 00-2590.

A mechanistic application of the law of hearsay should not defeat a defendant's right to obtain a fair trial through the presentation of reliable hearsay evidence. Evidence that qualifies for admission under an exception to the hearsay rule, and is critical to the defense implicates constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt and should be admitted under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. at 302. State v. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, 265 Wis. 2d 278, 666 N.W.2d 881, 00-2590.

Computer-stored records, which memorialize the assertions of human declarants, are distinct from computer-generated records, which are the result of a process free of human intervention. The hearsay rule is designed to protect against the four testimonial infirmities of ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, and erroneous memory. A record created as a result of a computerized or mechanical process cannot lie, forget, or misunderstand and is not hearsay. Because such a report is not hearsay, it was subject only to the statutory authentication requirements, and was properly authenticated under s. 909.01 through the testimony of experienced operators. State v. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, 336 Wis. 2d 478, 799 N.W.2d 865, 09-1351.