On Point: 2. Evidentiary decision

State v. Joshua P. O’Keefe, 2010AP2898-CR, District 4, 10/13/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Keefe: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶7        O’Keefe contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of Bannach and Wanta in which they read to the jury the “Diagnosis” portion of the medical reports because O’Keefe was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the doctors who prepared the reports,

State v. Dennis D. Lemoine, 2010AP2597-CR, District 4, 9/15/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lemoine: Donna L. Hintze, Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; supreme court review granted, 1/25/12

¶18      We agree with the trial court that the balance of the defendant’s personal characteristics against the tactics used by the police renders this is a “close case.”  However,

7th circuit decision

Habeas Review – Inadmissible Evidence – Harmless Error

Error in jury exposure, during deliberations, to inadmissible police report deemed harmless where the report contained merely cumulative information, the trial court gave a curative instruction, and the evidence against Brown was overwhelming.

The standard on direct appeal for measuring reversible error is the familiar Chapman test, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Jimmie Lee Higgins, 2010AP861-CR, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Higgins: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Higgins BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Any error with respect to exclusion of the victim’s pretrial statement to the police in one instance, and admissibility of her statements to a nurse, would be harmless.

State v. Marlon M. Anderson, 2010AP742-CR, District 1/4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Angela Conrad Kachelski; Anderson BiC; State Resp.

A defendant’s statement made voluntarily but in violation of Miranda isn’t admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but is admissible if the defendant testifies and the statement is inconsistent with his testimony. The question raised here relates to how such inconsistency is measured: whether outright contradictions are necessary,

State v. Jason M. Bruckbauer, 2009AP1823-CR, District 4, 8/19/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bruckbauer: Dennis Schertz; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Harmless Error

Any error in admission of a pretrial ID of Bruckbauer from a photo array was harmless, where: the challenged ID didn’t directly implicate him in the homicide but merely placed him at the scene;

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed

For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.

Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.” ¶29.