On Point blog, page 357 of 487
Opinion & Expert Testimony – “Death Scene” Analysis
State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175
For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson
Issue: Whether “death scene” analysis from an FBI agent was admissible to establish cause of simultaneous death of two elderly individuals found dead in their home.
Holding:
¶25 The general field of crime scene analysis has been recognized as being a body of specialized knowledge. United State v.
Expert Opinion Testimony re: Truthfulness of Complainant, as to Signs of Coaching or Suggestion
State v. Bryan James Krueger, 2008 WI App 162
For Krueger: Bradley J. Lochowicz
Issue/Holding:
¶15 Here, Mason was asked whether she had formed an opinion as to whether or not S.B. “was the product of any suggestibility or any coaching.” … Signs of coaching or suggestion could fall into the realm of knowledge that is outside that of a lay-person jury. [10]
¶16 However,
Appellate Procedure: Jurisdiction/Finality of Order – (State’s) Motion to Reconsider Oral Ruling
State v. Elizabeth A. White, 2008 WI App 96
For White: T Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding: Jurisdiction attaches to state’s appeal from denial of reconsideration of an oral ruling dismissing a count, ¶7 n. 5:
The State appeals from the written order denying the motion for reconsideration. White, citing Ver Hagen v. Gibbons, 55 Wis. 2d 21, 25,
Newly Discovered Evidence – Renewed Effort, Based on Changes in Medical Opinion, Not Barred
State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002)
For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School
Issue/Holding: Presentation of expert testimony to establish, under a theory of newly discovered evidence,
Newly Discovered Evidence – Change in Medical Opinion with Respect to Shaken Baby Syndrome – Probability of Different Result
State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002)
For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School
Issue/Holding: Edmunds was convicted over a decade ago of causing the death of a baby in her charge;
Counsel – Right to – Inherent Judicial Authority – Defendant’s Burden of Proof
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se
Issue/Holding: Defendant did not satisfy his burden of proving indigency, for purposes of invoking inherent judicial authority to appoint counsel, where he failed to submit information regarding attempts to retain counsel as well as information relative to rental property, ¶18.
Counsel – Right to – Defendant Must Cooperate With SPD 1st
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se
Issue/Holding:
¶27 We emphasize that the procedures set forth in Dean by this court suggest that the inherent power of the circuit court shall be exercised to cover situations where a defendant cooperated with the SPD’s financial analysis, was found not to be indigent under the legislative criteria, but based on the individual circumstances of the case,
Counsel – Right to – Review of SPD Denial of Representation, § 977.06(4)
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se
Issue/Holding1:
¶11 Kennedy argues that the trial court failed to properly review the SPD’s determination that he did not qualify for the appointment of counsel. In reviewing this issue, the trial court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See id, 163 Wis. 2d at 511.
SVP Commitments – Competency to Stand Trial – No Due Process Right to Evaluation
State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93
For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial
Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation.
Holding:
¶8 It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith,
Postconviction Procedure – Discovery – Privileged Material – Insufficient Showing for In-Camera Inspection of Victim’s Toxicology Report
State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2008 WI App 182
For Kletzien: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:
¶8 A person convicted of a crime has a due process right to postconviction discovery if “the desired evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence.” State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258, ¶32, 268 Wis. 2d 468, 673 N.W.2d 369. Whether to grant a motion requesting postconviction discovery is committed to the trial court’s discretion.