Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 908 — EVIDENCE — HEARSAY
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 908.05 (2026)

Hearsay within hearsay

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
908.05908.05 Hearsay within hearsay. Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in this chapter.
908.05 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R323 (1973).
908.05 AnnotationThe admission of double hearsay did not violate the defendant’s right to confront witnesses. State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis. 2d 425, 247 N.W.2d 80 (1976).
908.05 AnnotationEvidence of 911 calls, including tapes and transcripts of the calls, is not inadmissible hearsay. Admission does not violate the right to confront witnesses. State v. Ballos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1905.
908.05 AnnotationBefore entertaining the question of whether proffered evidence is hearsay or falls under a hearsay exception, courts must engage in an analysis of whether the evidence is relevant. In this case, because testimony as to the victim’s character and personal history was not relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence, testimony on those issues was not admissible regardless of the applicability of any hearsay exceptions. State v. Jacobs, 2012 WI App 104, 344 Wis. 2d 142, 822 N.W.2d 885, 11-1852.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Huntington, 575 N.W.2d 268 (Wis. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Huntington, 575 N.W.2d 268 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 12× “See *692 Wis. Stat. § 908.05 ; [7] State v. Kreuser, 91 Wis.”
State v. Ballos, 602 N.W.2d 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “We conclude that, under § 908.05, Stats., and § 908.03(6), Stats.”
Boyer v. State, 284 N.W.2d 30 (Wis. 1979). · cites it 3× “Sec. 908.05, Stats. That is, the re *662 ports cannot establish more than their maker could if he was testifying in court on their subject matter.”
In Re Commitment of Mark, 2008 WI App 44 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “We appreciate this concern and can see that, in those proceedings still governed by Wis. Stat. § 908.05 (lm), 18 the ramifications of applying Kastigar and Portash are significant.”
State v. Robles, 458 N.W.2d 818 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “Robles objected to Radspin-ner's testimony as inadmissible double hearsay pursuant to sec. 908.05, Stats. The rules of evidence, subject to certain limited exceptions, apply at a preliminary hearing.”
State v. Patino, 502 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “" Section 908.05, Stats. *363 C. Hearsay Analysis Officer May's testimony embraced three tiers of communication: (1) Patino's statement in Salazar's presence that he was going to kill Tamayo, (2) Salazar's statement to Deputy Aquino relating Patino's statement, and (3) Deputy…”
State v. Lenarchick, 247 N.W.2d 80 (Wis. 1976). “Sec. 908.05, Stats., provides: “Hearsay within hearsay.”
State v. Whiting, 402 N.W.2d 723 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Section 908.05, Stats., provides: Hearsay within hearsay.”
Mitchell v. State, 267 N.W.2d 349 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 908.05, Stats. That is, the reports cannot establish more than their maker could if he was testifying in court on their subject matter.”
State v. Bintz, 2002 WI App 204 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 908.05 requires each of these levels of hearsay to meet an exception to the rule in order to be admissible.”
Bergeron v. State, 271 N.W.2d 386 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 908.05, Stats., 10 recites that double hearsay is admissible if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.”
State v. Gilles, 496 N.W.2d 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Here, Gilíes sought to question a police detective about a department memorandum which documented a telephone conversation between a police lieutenant and a typography analyst at the state crime lab, neither of whom testified at the trial.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 908.05(2) — 1 case
State v. Denman, 2001 WI App 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wis. Stat. § 908.05(5) — 1 case
State v. Marinez, 2010 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.