Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; June 4, 1998; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court
The case concerns Malvern Sullivan's petition to amend her son Brian David Sullivan's death certificate, which listed the cause of death as 'suicide.' The Supreme Court of Wisconsin is tasked with clarifying two issues: the standard of review for circuit courts under Wis. Stat. 69.12(1) when assessing the accuracy of death certificate information, and whether the circuit court erred in excluding a Department of Transportation training pamphlet as evidence under the hearsay exception for public records (Wis. Stat. 908.03(8)).
The Waukesha County Circuit Court, presided over by Judge Patrick L. Snyder, denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. Brian Sullivan died after being struck by a train on August 25, 1990, following a night out with friends. He was found sitting on the tracks, not reacting to the train's approach despite warnings. A toxicology report indicated a high blood alcohol concentration of .165%. The Medical Examiner's investigation included autopsy findings and witness statements, leading to the initial classification of the death. The court of appeals sought clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the circuit court's review process in such cases.
Sullivan was believed to have faced personal and financial difficulties before being struck by a train, which the medical examiner concluded was a suicide. This led to a death certificate stating the manner of death as suicide, filed on September 4, 1990, and amended on October 1, 1990. On November 6, 1995, Sullivan's mother petitioned the circuit court under Wis. Stat. 69.12 to contest the suicide designation, arguing it did not reflect the actual facts. Hearings held in June and August 1996 featured testimonies indicating Sullivan's positive demeanor and lack of suicidal intent, countering the examiner's findings.
The mother presented evidence, including autopsy results suggesting Sullivan attempted to stand when struck, and a pamphlet from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation regarding alcohol's effects. The court ruled the pamphlet inadmissible as hearsay. Ultimately, the circuit court denied the petition, stating it could only change the death certificate if the examiner's determination was found to be arbitrary and capricious, which it was not. The decision was appealed, and the court of appeals sought certification on whether the circuit court applied the correct standard under Wis. Stat. 69.12(1), emphasizing that statutory interpretation is a legal question reviewed independently.
Wis. Stat. 69.12(1) allows individuals with a direct interest in a vital record to petition the circuit court if they believe that the record does not accurately reflect the actual facts at the time it was filed. If the court finds that the actual facts have been established, it will report this determination to the state registrar, who will amend the record accordingly. The circuit court's role is strictly as a factfinder, reviewing evidence to determine if the petitioner has shown that the vital record is inaccurate. This review is not limited to death certificates but includes all vital records, such as birth and marriage documents. The court must assess the actual facts at the time the record was created, which may include new information not previously considered. The manner and cause of death listed on a death certificate are factual matters, not administrative determinations, and can be certified by various officials, including physicians and medical examiners. The certifying party does not need to be involved in the petition process, and the circuit court has the authority to resolve factual disputes regarding the manner and cause of death.
The circuit court's primary role as a factfinder is to determine if the petitioner has met the burden of proof, which, under Wisconsin Statutes 69.12, is the standard of "proof by the greater weight of the credible evidence" in civil matters. A petitioner under Wis. Stat. 69.12(1) must provide a certified copy of the original death certificate, which is presumed valid, meaning the information within it is assumed to reflect the actual facts at the time it was filed unless proven otherwise. The burden lies with the petitioner to demonstrate, by the greater weight of credible evidence, that the facts in the death certificate are not accurate.
The court dismissed the Respondent's argument that the petitioner must prove the medical examiner's findings were arbitrary or capricious, emphasizing that the circuit court must independently review the evidence while presuming the validity of the death certificate. Consequently, the court reversed the denial of Malvern Sullivan's petition and remanded for further proceedings.
Additionally, the court addressed the issue of whether it improperly denied evidence from a pamphlet related to alcohol consumption's effects on judgment. The petitioner argued that the pamphlet could show how alcohol could impair judgment and perception, potentially influencing Sullivan's death rather than intentional suicide. The Respondent contested its admissibility as hearsay, and the court ruled that the pamphlet did not qualify for the public records hearsay exception under Wis. Stat. 908.03(8).
A circuit court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is discretionary and can only be overturned by an appellate court if there is a clear error in the exercise of that discretion. An erroneous view of the law or misapplication of legal standards can constitute such an error. In this case, the circuit court's refusal to admit a pamphlet into evidence was deemed an erroneous exercise of discretion, particularly because it misapplied Wis. Stat. 908.03(8), which allows public records and reports as exceptions to hearsay rules. Public records must be from recognized public agencies and contain information observed or compiled under legal duty, unless indicated to be untrustworthy.
The court of appeals has previously admitted evidence under this statute, such as a blood alcohol chart from a similar training pamphlet in State v. Hinz and findings from the Wisconsin Motorists Handbook in Lievrouw v. Roth. Both cases affirmed that documents published by the Department of Transportation are admissible as they serve public interests in driver licensing and education about alcohol's effects. The training pamphlet in question is produced by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, containing factual data about alcohol's impact, thus satisfying the hearsay exception outlined in Wis. Stat. 908.03(8). Consequently, there is no justification for treating this pamphlet differently from those previously admitted in analogous cases.
The circuit court's refusal to admit the training pamphlet as evidence was deemed an erroneous exercise of discretion, categorizing it as inadmissible hearsay. On remand, the circuit court is directed to permit the Petitioner to introduce the pamphlet into evidence. The order from the Waukesha County Circuit Court is reversed. The pamphlet contains statistical data indicating that higher alcohol concentrations significantly impair physical and mental faculties, with initial effects including impaired judgment, self-evaluation, and altered risk assessment, as well as reduced hearing perception. Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless specified by statute or supreme court rules, with public records and reports being an exception, as outlined in Wis. Stat. 908.03(8). The relevance of the pamphlet aligns with the criteria for admissibility under this statute, supported by precedents such as Roth v. Black & Decker, confirming the admissibility of similar reports.
