Sullivan, Matter of
| Decision Date | 04 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3376,96-3376 |
| Citation | 578 N.W.2d 596,218 Wis.2d 458 |
| Parties | In re the Matter of Brian David SULLIVAN. Malvern SULLIVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WAUKESHA COUNTY, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the petitioner-appellant there were briefs (in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) by William A. Denny, Jonathan Cermele, Joseph S. Heino and Denny & Yanisch, Elm Grove and oral argument by William A. Denny and Michael W. Steinhafel.
For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument(in the Supreme Court) by Danni L. Caldwell, Waukesha County Corporation Counsel.
This case raises two issues for review:
(1) Which standard of review must a circuit court apply when conducting a hearing under Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) (1993-94) 1 to determine whether a petitioner has established that information on a certificate of death "does not represent the actual facts in effect at the time" the certificate of death was filed?
(2) Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to receive into evidence under the Wis. Stat. § 908.03(8) hearsay exception for public records and reports a training pamphlet published by the Department of Transportation?
¶2 This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61. The court of appeals asks that this court clarify the circuit court's role in reviewing a certificate of death under Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1). After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, Patrick L. Snyder, Judge, denied Malvern Sullivan's petition under Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) requesting that the circuit court amend her son's certificate of death so that the manner and cause of his death would be officially designated as something other than "suicide." The Petitioner appealed the circuit court's order, and the court of appeals requested certification.
¶3 The relevant facts of this case are simple. In the early morning hours of August 25, 1990, Brian Sullivan died from injuries he suffered from being struck by a train. The record establishes that, on the night of his death, Sullivan returned home from a night of socializing with friends and made his way approximately 70 feet from his home to a set of railroad tracks--a location familiar to Sullivan as a place he occasionally went to smoke cigarettes and marijuana. According to the railroad company's official report, Sullivan was sitting on the railroad tracks and never looked up as the train approached. Although the train crew blew the train's whistle and began to brake, they could not stop the train before it struck Sullivan. The crew of the train explained that because of a blind spot in front of the locomotive, they could not see if Sullivan attempted to escape being hit by the train. A medical toxicology report revealed that at the time of his death, Sullivan had a blood alcohol concentration of .165% by weight.
¶4 Due to the circumstances surrounding Sullivan's death, the Waukesha County Medical Examiner was required to conduct an investigation to determine the manner and cause of Sullivan's death. See Wis. Stat. §§ 59.38 and 979.01 (1989-90). The Acting Medical Examiner, Paul Hibbard, conducted an investigation into Sullivan's death. The examiner reviewed the findings of the autopsy, reviewed statements made to police officers by the conductor of the train that struck Sullivan, and reviewed statements made by a number of Sullivan's friends and members of his family.
¶5 Based on the information he gathered during his investigation, the examiner believed that Sullivan had been experiencing business and financial problems; that Sullivan's girlfriend of six years had recently ended their relationship; and that Sullivan looked at the approaching train, placed his head on his arms, and did not appear to be startled before being struck by the train. Based on this information, the examiner concluded that Sullivan committed suicide. 2 After reaching this conclusion, the examiner issued a certificate of death for Sullivan stating that his "manner of death" was "suicide" and that he was struck by a train "as a consequence" of "suicide." This certificate of death was received by the State Registrar on September 4, 1990, and corrected in part on October 1, 1990.
¶6 On November 6, 1995, Brian Sullivan's mother, Malvern Sullivan, petitioned the circuit court under Wis. Stat. § 69.12 to find that the designation of "suicide" as the manner and cause of death on her son's certificate of death did not reflect the "actual facts" at the time the certificate of death was filed. The circuit court conducted hearings during June and August of 1996, at which the Petitioner presented evidence she believed contradicted the medical examiner's conclusion that her son committed suicide.
¶7 At the hearing, the Petitioner presented evidence principally showing that her son lacked suicidal motive or intent. The testimony of friends and family showed that Sullivan was positive, upbeat, outgoing, fun-loving, gregarious, and active. The Petitioner presented evidence to counter the examiner's finding that Brian Sullivan was having financial, business, and personal problems. The Petitioner also showed that the doctor performing the autopsy specifically noted that injuries to Sullivan's right leg were consistent with Sullivan attempting to stand at the time he was struck by the train.
¶8 The Petitioner also proffered as evidence a pamphlet published by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Wisconsin State Patrol entitled "Basic Training Program for Breath Examiner Specialist." The pamphlet contains information regarding the effects alcohol has on a person's judgment, emotions, and perception. The Respondent objected, arguing that the pamphlet was inadmissible hearsay. See Wis. Stat. § 908.02. 3 The circuit court sustained the objection on the ground that the pamphlet was hearsay and did not fit within the hearsay exception for public records and reports provided in Wis. Stat. § 908.03(8). 4 The Petitioner made an offer of proof.
¶9 After the hearing, the circuit court issued a written decision denying the petition. The circuit court first concluded that under Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) it sat as a reviewing court rather than as a finder of fact and could not order the certificate of death changed unless it found that the medical examiner's determination was "arbitrary and capricious." After it determined that the Petitioner failed to establish that the medical examiner's determination was arbitrary and capricious, the circuit court denied the petition. The Petitioner appealed the circuit court's denial and its refusal to admit into evidence the pamphlet. We accepted the court of appeals' request for certification.
¶10 The first issue to consider is whether the circuit court applied the proper standard under Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1). This is a matter of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that this court reviews independent of the judgment of the circuit court. See Lake City Corp. v. City of Mequon, 207 Wis.2d 155, 162-63, 558 N.W.2d 100 (1997). The goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the legislature's intent. See Stockbridge School Dist. v. DPI, 202 Wis.2d 214, 219, 550 N.W.2d 96 (1996). The main source for statutory interpretation is the plain language of the statute itself. See Jungbluth v. Hometown Inc., 201 Wis.2d 320, 327, 548 N.W.2d 519 (1996). If the language is clear, we may not look beyond the language of the statute to ascertain its meaning. See Lake City Corp., 207 Wis.2d at 164, 558 N.W.2d 100 (citing Stockbridge School Dist., 202 Wis.2d at 220, 550 N.W.2d 96).
¶11 Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) provides:
If ... a person with a direct and tangible interest in the vital record alleges that information on the vital record does not represent the actual facts in effect at the time the record was filed, the person may petition the circuit court of the county in which the event which is the subject of the vital record is alleged to have occurred.... If the court finds that the petitioner has established the actual facts of the event in effect when the record was filed, the clerk of court shall report the court's determination to the state registrar....
Id. (emphasis added).
¶12 The circuit court interpreted the language of Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) as requiring it to sit as a reviewing court, reviewing the medical examiner's determination under the standard of review traditionally accorded to decisions of administrative agencies. In its decision denying the petition, the circuit court concluded that "the appropriate standard of review for the case herein and therefore for Wisconsin courts is to limit the court's review of the exercise of discretion to determining whether the medical examiner's decision was arbitrary or capricious." We disagree.
¶13 By its plain language, Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) prescribes a very limited role to the circuit court--that of a factfinder. The court's scope of review under Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) is not limited to facts underlying a certificate of death; it encompasses facts represented in all "vital records," including "certificates of birth, death, divorce or annulment, marriage documents and data related thereto." Wis. Stat. § 69.01(26). A person who files a petition under Wis. Stat. § 69.12(1) alleges only that the information in a vital record does not represent the actual facts existing at the time the vital record was filed. The relief sought by a petitioner is to have the circuit court enter the actual facts and order the state registrar to change the vital record. When considering a petition filed under this section, the circuit court's only role is to review the evidence presented by a petitioner and to determine whether the petitioner "has established the actual facts of the event in effect when the record was filed."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillen v. City of Neenah
... ... Stat. § 893.80(1)(b) ] have nothing to do with [219 Wis.2d 826] subject matter jurisdiction of a circuit court. Lees v. ILHR Department, 49 Wis.2d 491, 497, 182 N.W.2d 245 (1971); Galloway v. State, 32 Wis.2d 414, 419, 145 ... 11 See, e.g., Barland v. Eau Claire County, 216 Wis.2d 559, 575 N.W.2d 691 (1998); Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis.2d 458, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998) ... 12 This court has not yet determined the status of an issue decided in a published ... ...
-
Beard v. Lee Enterprises, Inc.
...¶13 When interpreting a statute, we must ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis.2d 458, 464, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998). In determining legislative intent, we first look to the language of the statute to determine whether its meaning is c......
-
Mucek v. Nationwide Communications, Inc., 00-3039.
... ... the fact that NCI was involved in three cases that were "tightly scheduled" and that he had not yet received all the documents filed in this matter, including the request for admissions ... ¶ 13. The trial court denied that motion orally during a hearing on August 3. For the ... Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis. 2d 458, 470, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998) ... Other acts evidence is admissible if: (1) it is offered for an acceptable purpose ... ...
-
Walton v. Wilke
...discretion. We note, however, that it is an erroneous exercise of discretion if the court misapplies the law. Sullivan v. Waukesha Cnty., 218 Wis.2d 458, 470, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998). ...