On Point blog, page 255 of 485
Rape Shield Law — prior sexual activity between defendant and complainant; relevance to fact in issue; probative value outweighing prejudice
State v. Muhammad Sarfraz, 2013 WI App 57, petition for review granted 9/17/13; case activity
The circuit court erroneously excluded evidence of prior sexual activity between Sarfraz and I.N., the complainant. She alleged Sarfraz, wearing a mask and saying he was the landlord, knocked on the door of her apartment, came in when she opened the door, and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
Automobile exception to warrant requirement — probable cause to search trunk based on evidence found in passenger compartment
State v. Andrew Alexander Jackson, Jr., 2013 WI App 66; case activity
The circuit court erred in suppressing marijuana found in the trunk of Jackson’s car because there was probable cause to search the trunk based on the discovery of marijuana residue, $1,961 in cash, and a digital scale in the passenger compartment of the car:
¶10 Like in [United States v.] Ross,
New trial ordered due to erroneous evidentiary rulings that excluded school disciplinary records relevant to impeaching the complainant and admitted Haseltine-type evidence
State v. Gene A. Echols, 2013 WI App 58; case activity
Echols is entitled to a new trial on charges of child sexual assault because the trial court erred in prohibiting evidence relating to the complainant’s motive to fabricate the assault and in admitting testimony from Echols’s employer that he only stutters when he is lying.
Erroneous ruling excluding complainant’s school disciplinary records
A fifteen-year-old student alleged that Echols,
Jury – selection – “Batson” claim; prosecutor’s failure to provide neutral explanation for striking Native American juror
State v. Karen Lynn Snow, 2012AP2323-CR, District 4, 4/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, not eligible for publication); case activity
Applying the three-part, burden shifting test for Batson claims, see State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶28, 262 Wis. 2d 747, 664 N.W.2d 607, the court of appeals concludes the circuit court erred in rejecting Snow’s objection to the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of Whiteeagle,
Arrest – police officer acting outside his jurisdiction under § 66.0313(2)
State v. Michael E. Zinke, 2012AP2087-CR, District 4, 4/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The stop and arrest of Zinke by a police officer well outside his jurisdiction was proper under a mutual aid statute, § 66.0313(2), even though the officer was “miles away” from his jurisdiction and initiated contact with the agency that had jurisdiction.
These are the facts: A Village of Westfield police officer was traveling on a county highway in Marquette County when he observed a vehicle repeatedly deviating from its designated lane.
Miranda custody; “private safety” exception to Miranda
State v. Corey J. Uhlenberg, 2013 WI App 59; case activity
Miranda custody
Uhlenberg was in “custody” during an interview at the police department, so the circuit court should have suppressed the statements Uhlenberg made during the interrogation after he requested an attorney:
¶11 Throughout its arguments, the State emphasizes the fact that the detective repeatedly told Uhlenberg that he was not under arrest.
Traffic stop – reasonable suspicion; good-faith mistake of fact
State v. Donald D. Laufer, 2012AP915, District 2, 4/3/13; court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity
The officer’s erroneous reading of Laufer’s license plate, which caused the officer to wrongly believe that the plate might not be registered to the vehicle, nonetheless supported stop of the car under the good-faith rule, adopting the reasoning of State v. Reierson, No. 2010AP596, unpublished slip op.
Discretion of trial court — evidentiary decisions; mistrial motions
State v. Desmond Dejuan Laster, 2012AP1739-CR, District 1, 4/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in making two evidentiary rulings or in denying Laster’s motion for a mistrial.
On the first evidentiary ruling, the court of appeals holds the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask Hunt, a defense witness,
Restitution for damage to stolen van that is later used to commit robberies
State v. Devante J. Lumpkins, 2012AP1670-CR, District 1, 4/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Lumpkins is liable for restitution for damage to a stolen van he and two co-defendants (“The Jack Boys”) used to commit two armed robberies, even though Lumpkins was not charged with or convicted of the theft of the van. Restitution requires that there be a “direct victim” of the crime and a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the claimed damages (¶7),
Privileges — Confidential informant, § 905.10(3)(b) — sufficiency of information to trigger in camera review
State v. Jessica A. Nellessen, 2013 WI App 46, petition for review granted 10/15/13; case activity
Under the two-step procedure for determining whether a confidential informant’s identity should be disclosed, the court must first determine whether there is reason to believe that the informant may be able to give testimony “necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.” If there is reason to so believe,