On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Preservation of Issue: Motion in Limine; Ineffective Assistance: Client’s Failure to Reveal Information to Counsel; Harmless Error Review: Cf. IAC-Prejudice; Evidence: § 905.05 Marital Privilege & 3rd-Party
State v. Winston B. Eison, 2011 WI App 52; for Eison: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
Preservation of Issue – Motion in Limine
Eison objected to introduction of evidence of his arrest on an unrelated offense via motion in limine, which the trial court granted. At trial, however, the court allowed the State to introduce this evidence. Eison didn’t need to lodge additional objection to preserve the issue for review.
Introducing Evidence Doesn’t Waive Challenge to Admissibility Where Trial Court Ruled Evidence Admissible on Motion In Limine
State v. Gary M.B., 2004 WI 33, affirming 2003 WI App 72, 261 Wis. 2d 811, 661 N.W.2d 435
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue: Whether defendant’s introduction of his/ her prior criminal record, after objection to its admissibility was overruled, waived the objection.
Holding:
¶11. Under the doctrine of strategic waiver, also known as invited error,
In Limine Orders — Enforcement
State v. Sylvester Sigarroa, 2004 WI App 16
For Sigarroa: John Pray, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶28. We do not end our discussion here. Instead, we are compelled to admonish the increasing pattern of witness and/or attorney violation of in limine orders. On several occasions, we have spent judicial time and resources to make a very similar admonition. Unfortunately, it appears our reproach has fallen on deaf ears because the pattern of these violations continues.¶29.
Contemporaneous Objection – Policies Advanced Via Motion In Limine
State v. Jonathan J. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, PFR filed 3/22/02
For English-Lancaster: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether defendant waived an objection to the violation of an in limine order, by waiting until a recess to enter an objection.
Holding:
¶17. When the State violated the stipulation and the court’s order at trial, English- Lancaster did not immediately object. Instead,
Motion in Limine as Preserving Failure to Object to Closing Argument
State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski
Issue/Holding: Failure to object to portions of closing argument didn’t waive right to challenge them on appeal, where defendant obtained a “definitive pretrial ruling” which “served to preserve (his) position for appeal.” ¶25 n. 9.
motion in limine, preservation of issue.
(See also Appeals, Waiver; and Evidence, Objection)
State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Benoit: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP.
Holding: “(A) defendant who makes a motion in limine preserves the right to appeal the issue raised by the motion without renewing the motion at trial,” but only to “the extent that the issue was raised during the motion in limine hearing.”