On Point blog, page 14 of 25
Right to confront and present evidence; probative value of evidence outweighed by prejudicial effect, § 904.03
State v. Damon R. Lowe, 2012AP555-CR, District 2, 9/18/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Lowe, charged with sexual and physical abuse of V.A.L., his adopted daughter, sought to present evidence that she was motivated to fabricate her allegations because she wanted to get away from her overly strict father, who restricted her use of cell phones, her internet use, and her choice of friends.
TPR — continuing CHIPS; sufficiency of the evidence that parent will likely not meet the required conditions for return of the child
Kenosha County DHS v. Debra S.A., 2013AP318, District 2, 7/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent decision that applies the well-established sufficiency standard (¶10), the court concludes the evidence at the fact-finding hearing permitted the trier of fact to conclude that Debra had not complied with requirements that she actively participate in mental health services and successfully complete and demonstrate an understanding of the principles taught in a parenting program and that she would not meet these conditions within nine months.
Repeated child sexual assault, § 948.025: instruction on first degree child sexual assault as lesser-included; other acts evidence; date of offense; ineffective assistance of counsel
State v. Robert T. Warriner, 2012AP244-CR, District 2/1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Instruction on first degree child sexual assault as lesser-included of repeated child sexual assault
At trial the child testified that Warriner sexually assaulted her on only two occasions, so the trial court agreed, over Warriner’s objections, to read the instruction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, § 948.02(1).
A reminder about preserving arguments
State v. Brian Kiale Little, 2012AP2162, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
A year after Little pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon he filed a motion for return of the gun and ammunition involved in the offense. The circuit court denied the motion because § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits return of a dangerous weapon to a person who committed a crime involving the use of the weapon.
Substitution of judge — § 971.20(4),(5); reassignment of original judge does not make the judge “new” for substitution purposes. Admission of evidence — limiting the playing of audio recordings. Armed robbery, § 943.32 — sufficiency of the evidence.
State v. Keith M. Bohannon, 2013 WI App 87; case activity
Substitution of judge; “new” judge under § 971.20(5)
When a case is reassigned from the original judge to a second judge and then reassigned again back to the first judge, the first judge is the “original” judge assigned to the case under § 971.20(4), not a “new” judge under § 971.20(5). Therefore, a motion to substitute the original judge had to be filed before the arraignment,
Sufficiency of the evidence. Plain error — leading questions, closing arguments, jury instructions.
State v. Brian L. Jackson, 2012AP1008-CR, District 1, 5/14/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Sufficiency of the evidence
In a necessarily fact-specific discussion (¶¶4-5, 10-12), the court of appeals holds there was sufficient evidence to support Jackson’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm despite the existence of evidence to the contrary, which included the lack of Jackson’s DNA on the gun (and other objects) he supposedly discarded during a foot pursuit and the fact the officers lost sight of the men they were pursuing at various times during the chase:
¶13 The …
State v. Nancy J. Pinno, 2011AP2424-CR/State v. Travis J. Seaton, 2012AP918, certification granted, 2/25/13
On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton
Issue (from certification):
Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?
See our previous post for further discussion.
“Plain” error means plain at the time of appeal, not trial
Henderson v. United States, USSC No. 11-9307, reversing 646 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2011)
When is plain really plain? That’s the plain and simple issue in this case. During trial, the district court decided a substantive legal question against the defendant. But while the case was on direct appeal, SCOTUS, in a separate case, settled the legal question in the defendant’s favor, thus prompting a question about whether the district court’s decision in Henderson qualified as “plain error.”
Issue: “Is the time for determining “plainness” the time when the error is committed,
Armarcion D. Henderson v. U.S., USSC No. 11-9307, cert granted 6/25/12
Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits an appellate court to correct a trial court’s “plain error” despite the lack of an objection in the trial court. In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), this Court held that, when the governing law on an issue is settled against the defendant at the time of trial but then changes in the defendant’s favor by the time of appeal,
Double Jeopardy – Retrial after Mistrial
State v. Susan M. Thorstad, 2011AP2854-CR, District 4, 5/31/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Thorstad: Charles W. Giesen; case activity
Mistrial was granted after the arresting officer, in contravention of pretrial order, testified that this was Thorstad’s second OWI. However, the officer was unaware of the order, because the prosecutor had failed to advise of same, an omission the trial court attributed to “laxness on the part of the State.” The trial court then ruled that,