State v. Skillon — conviction affirmed because witness’s texts were not testimonial

Case
State of Wisconsin v. Eric A. Skillon
Court
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District I
Judge
Donald, C.J.; Colón, P.J.; Geenen, J.
Date Decided
October 20, 2026
Docket No.
2024AP738-CR
Topics
Confrontation Clause; hearsay; testimonial statements; criminal appeals
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Eric A. Skillon was convicted in Milwaukee County of first-degree reckless homicide and attempted armed robbery, both as party to a crime. The charges arose from a planned robbery of Raamah Rutledge on December 1, 2019, during which Skillon shot Rutledge three times, killing him.

A 14-year-old witness, identified as Darcy, later sent text messages to a friend’s mother describing two men arriving with guns and saying they had killed someone. She also said she would try to obtain more evidence. Darcy had moved out of state and refused to return for trial. The circuit court found her unavailable and admitted the messages under Wisconsin’s residual hearsay exception.

The Court’s Holding

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that admitting Darcy’s texts did not violate Skillon’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right because the texts were not testimonial.

Applying the objective primary-purpose inquiry, the court emphasized that Darcy’s messages were informal texts to a trusted adult rather than statements to police or formal testimony. Her status as a child also weighed against finding an intent to create trial evidence. The circumstances showed that she was reacting to and processing a frightening event, and Skillon had not yet been identified to police when she sent the messages.

Key Takeaways

  • An unavailable witness’s hearsay statement does not implicate the Confrontation Clause unless it is testimonial.
  • Informal messages to a non-law-enforcement recipient are less likely to be testimonial.
  • A witness’s reference to gathering “evidence” did not overcome the surrounding circumstances showing the texts were not created as a substitute for trial testimony.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates that courts assess alleged testimonial hearsay in context, rather than treating a witness’s use of the word “evidence” as dispositive. Informal communications by a child to a trusted adult may be admissible when the declarant is unavailable and the statements were not objectively made to establish facts for prosecution or trial.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top