State v. Justin J. Hodgkins

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
September 10, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2024AP475-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2021CF633

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

JUSTIN J. HODGKINS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Waukesha County: J. ARTHUR MELVIN, III, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Neubauer, P.J., Gundrum, and Lazar, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Justin J. Hodgkins appeals from a judgment of
conviction for burglary and an order denying his postconviction motion. He
No. 2024AP475-CR

contends the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in receiving two items
into evidence at his trial: (1) a report from a database that tracks sales of items to
pawn shops; and (2) surveillance video from a pawn shop showing Hodgkins
selling several power tools that were similar in appearance to those reported
missing after the burglary. Hodgkins argues the State failed to properly
authenticate either piece of evidence. Because the court did not erroneously
exercise its discretion in determining that the State had introduced sufficient
evidence to authenticate the report and video, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On January 30, 2021, the owner of a house undergoing renovations
in Waukesha reported to police that it had been burglarized. The owner found the
front door unlocked, a window broken, and multiple tools that were being used in
the renovations missing from the house and garage. Officer Richard Young of the
Waukesha Police Department was dispatched to the scene. Young’s investigation
led him to focus on one of the owner’s employees, “Justin,” who had been
working at the house, as a suspect. The owner subsequently gave Young the
employee’s full name, Justin Hodgkins.

¶3 As part of his investigation, Young searched the Northeastern
Wisconsin Property Reporting System (NEWPRS), a database that contains
information about sales to pawnshops, for sales associated with Hodgkins that
occurred in the days before the burglary was reported. Young found a transaction
that involved two nail guns that were sold on January 30 at Pawn America in
West Allis. Young gave information about the sale to the detective bureau for
follow up.

2
No. 2024AP475-CR

¶4 Detective Benjamin Stern met with the owners of Pawn America
who provided a surveillance video of the transaction as well as paperwork
documenting the sale of the nail guns on January 30. Stern also learned that
Hodgkins had tried to sell two other nail guns to Pawn America, which refused to
buy them because they looked new and Hodgkins did not have receipts for them.
Stern obtained photographs of the pawned items and showed them to the owner,
who indicated that they appeared to be his property. After Hodgkins failed to
appear for several scheduled meetings with Stern, the State charged him with one
count of burglary as a repeater, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 943.10(1m)(a)
(2023-24).1

¶5 Hodgkins pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial. Moments
before opening statements began, Hodgkins moved to exclude the NEWPRS
report and the surveillance video on multiple grounds, including that the State had
not identified a witness who could authenticate them. The State responded by
outlining the evidence it planned to present to authenticate the evidence. The trial
court denied Hodgkins’ motion, stating that it “w[ould] allow the video to be
played and the [NEWPRS report] to be discussed” and would address any
“foundational issues” related to those items if they arose during the trial.

¶6 At trial, Young and Stern testified about their respective
involvement in investigating the burglary. Young testified that burglars “often
resell the items that they steal,” either online or at a pawn shop. He described the
NEWPRS database as a resource for “pawn shops and places as such that buy
items from people to document the items in order for law enforcement to be able
to review them.” Young confirmed that he had access to the database in his

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

3
No. 2024AP475-CR

capacity as a police officer and described how he ran a search in the database for
transactions involving Hodgkins that occurred around the time of the burglary and
“located two [nail guns] that were similar to the ones that [the owner] had stated
he was missing from his home.” Young also testified that “a printout, … like an
invoice of the items that were pawned” can be created from the search. The State
showed him the NEWPRS report, which Young described as “that transaction
report or … kind of like an invoice that [he] located of the items pawned by
Mr. Hodgkins.” He identified the date of the transaction, which appeared in the
corner of the form, as January 30, and Hodgkins as the seller listed on the form.
The trial court received the report in evidence over Hodgkins’ objection.

¶7 Stern testified about his visit to the pawn shop, where he met with
the owners, obtained surveillance video of the transaction documented in the
NEWPRS report, and recovered the two nail guns. Stern testified that he reviewed
the video and confirmed that the time stamp on the video matched the date and
time of the transaction at issue. The court overruled Hodgkins’ objections and
admitted the video into evidence. Segments of the video depicting Hodgkins at
one of Pawn America’s “teller bays” were played for the jury, again over
Hodgkins’ objection that the segments had not been sufficiently authenticated.

¶8 Shortly before closing arguments, Hodgkins repeated his objection
to the surveillance video and the NEWPRS report on the ground that “someone
from the pawn shop” had not authenticated them. The trial court again disagreed,
stating that a “proper foundation” had been laid for the video because Stern had
collected it “in due course” and “testified as to what it was a depiction of [and]
where it was obtained from.” As to the NEWPRS report, the court stated that “[i]t
was represented as information that was pulled from a data system that [Young]
has access to” and he “talked through how that information was first alerted and

4
No. 2024AP475-CR

then how it was used[.]” This testimony was sufficient, in the court’s view, for the
report to be admitted. The jury found Hodgkins guilty.

¶9 Hodgkins filed a postconviction motion seeking a new trial on the
ground that the surveillance video and NEWPRS report had not been properly
authenticated. He argued that under WIS. STAT. § 908.03(6), the State “had to
authenticate the documentation by the testimony of the custodian of the records or
his or her designee.” The State countered that Stern’s testimony and additional
circumstantial evidence—the NEWPRS report and evidence that Hodgkins’ cell
phone was in the vicinity of Pawn America at the date and time of the sale
depicted in the video—was sufficient to authenticate the video. Furthermore, the
State argued that it had authenticated the NEWPRS report through Young’s
testimony about the contents of the database and how he searched it. The trial
court denied the postconviction motion.

DISCUSSION

¶10 A trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed under the
erroneous exercise of discretion standard. Allsop Venture Partners III v. Murphy
Desmond SC, 2023 WI 43, ¶23, 407 Wis. 2d 387, 991 N.W.2d 320. Under that
standard, our analysis focuses on whether the court “examined the facts of record,
applied a proper legal standard, and, using a rational process, reached a reasonable
conclusion.” State v. Pittman, 174 Wis. 2d 255, 268, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993)
(citation omitted). “[W]e look not to see if we agree with the [trial] court’s
determination, but rather whether the trial court exercised its discretion in
accordance with accepted legal standards and … the facts of record.” State v.
Huntington, 216 Wis. 2d 671, 680-81, 575 N.W.2d 268 (1998) (citation omitted).

5
No. 2024AP475-CR

“If we can discern a reasonable basis for its evidentiary decision, then the [trial]
court has not committed an erroneous exercise of discretion.” Id. at 681.

¶11 Authentication of evidence is governed by WIS. STAT. § 909.01,
which states that “[t]he requirements of authentication or identification as a
condition precedent to admissibility are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support
a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” WISCONSIN
STAT. § 909.015 sets forth examples of how evidence may be authenticated,
including as relevant here by “[t]estimony of a witness with knowledge that a
matter is what it is claimed to be” and “[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal
patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with
circumstances.” Sec. 909.015(1), (4). In summary, “authentication requires that a
[trial] court conclude, within its discretion, that the finder of fact could reasonably
determine that the evidence sought to be admitted is what its proponent says it is.”
State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68, ¶32, 398 Wis. 2d 1, 961 N.W.2d 314.

¶12 The trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it
determined that the State had presented sufficient evidence to authenticate the
NEWPRS report and the surveillance video. Our review of the court’s ruling
indicates that the court applied the proper legal standard for authentication,
considered the testimony from Young and Stern and other relevant evidence, and
reasonably concluded that the jury could find that each piece of evidence was what
the State claimed it to be.

¶13 With respect to the NEWPRS report, the trial court looked to
Young’s testimony about the database and how he searched it for transactions
involving Hodgkins near the date the burglary was reported. Young testified that
pawn shops are required to log transactions into the NEWPRS or similar databases

6
No. 2024AP475-CR

so that law enforcement can learn of those transactions if they involve suspected
stolen property. Young explained how he searched the database to determine if
Hodgkins had sold any items near in time to the burglary and how he generated a
report from the database of the January 30 transaction at Pawn America. From
this testimony, the court reasonably determined that the jury could find the
NEWPRS report to be the document Young described it to be. See State v.
Giacomantonio, 2016 WI App 62, ¶21, 371 Wis. 2d 452, 885 N.W.2d 394
(detective’s testimony that screen shots of text messages he viewed on victim’s
cell phone accurately depicted the messages was sufficient to authenticate them).

¶14 We reach the same conclusion with respect to the surveillance video.
The State contended that the video showed Hodgkins selling two nail guns at
Pawn America on January 30. Stern testified that he visited Pawn America in
person and obtained the video by telling the shop owners the date and time of the
transaction at issue. He testified further that he recovered the nail guns at the
pawn shop. Just before the video was played, Stern testified that he had reviewed
it and that the date and time stamp on the video matched the date and time he had
requested. Stern later confirmed that the location shown in the video was a teller
bay at Pawn America and that Hodgkins was the customer shown in the video.
We agree with the trial court that this testimony was sufficient for the jury to find
that the video showed Hodgkins selling the nail guns at Pawn America on
January 30.

¶15 Hodgkins’ arguments do not persuade us that the trial court
erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting either piece of evidence. He
contends that the report and video are business records under WIS. STAT.
§ 908.03(6) and thus required testimony from a “custodian or other qualified
witness” to authenticate. Young’s and Stern’s testimony was not sufficient, in

7
No. 2024AP475-CR

Hodgkins’ view, because the officers were merely recipients of the evidence, not
custodians.

¶16 We disagree. Authentication is governed by WIS. STAT. § 909.01,
not WIS. STAT. § 908.03(6). The latter provision is a hearsay exception that
applies to “[r]ecords of regularly conducted activity” and exempts such a record
from the hearsay prohibition if a “custodian or other qualified witness” testifies
that the record was “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted
by, a person with knowledge, all in the course of a regularly conducted activity[.]”
Sec. 908.03(6). Section 909.01, in contrast, merely requires “evidence sufficient
to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims” to
satisfy “[t]he requirements of authentication or identification as a condition
precedent to admissibility[.]” Although testimony from a Pawn America
representative may have been sufficient to authenticate the NEWPRS report and
the surveillance video, it was not required.

¶17 The trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in
concluding that the testimony of Young and Stern was sufficient to authenticate
the surveillance video and the NEWPRS report. In light of our conclusion, we
need not address the State’s alternative argument that admission of the evidence, if
improper, was harmless error.

By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

8
No. 2024AP475-CR

9