The Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed the case of Damian L. Hauschultz, a juvenile, who appealed his conviction. Hauschultz argued that his statements to the police should not have been used as evidence against him. He claimed he had not been given his Miranda warnings and that, due to his age, his statements were not made voluntarily. The Court of Appeals disagreed. They determined that Hauschultz was not in a custodial situation during the first two interviews. Even if the third interview was considered custodial, the Court held that any error in admitting his statements was harmless.

This case, decided by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, involved an appeal by Damian L. Hauschultz, a juvenile, challenging his conviction. Hauschultz argued that statements he made during police questioning should not have been used against him in court. His argument rested on two points: first, that he was not read his Miranda rights before being questioned, and second, that due to his age, his statements were not truly voluntary.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with both arguments. They determined that Hauschultz was not in a custodial setting during the first two interviews with police, meaning that Miranda warnings were not required. Regarding the third interview, the Court acknowledged that it might have been custodial, but even if an error was made in admitting the statements, this error was harmless. This means that even if the statements from the third interview had been excluded, the evidence presented at trial was still sufficient to support the conviction.

This case involves a young person, Damian L. Hauschultz, who was convicted of a crime. He argued that the statements he made to the police shouldn't be allowed in court because he wasn't told his rights and because he was too young to understand what he was saying. The Court of Appeals, which is a higher court that reviews cases, disagreed. They decided that Hauschultz wasn't being held by the police in a way that required them to read him his rights during the first two times he spoke to them. Even if the third time he spoke to the police did require them to read him his rights, they decided that it didn't affect the outcome of the case.

This case is about a young person named Damian Hauschultz who was in trouble with the law. Hauschultz said that the police shouldn't be able to use the things he said to them because he wasn't told his rights and he was too young to understand what he was saying. But the court said that Hauschultz wasn't in a situation where he was being held by the police during the first two times he talked to them. And even if he was being held during the third time, it wouldn't matter because the things he said didn't change the outcome of the case.