On Point blog, page 169 of 214
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Prior Domestic Abuse — on Trial of Battery to Live-in Girlfriend
State v. Joseph F. Volk, 2002 WI App 274
For Volk: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison App
Issue: Whether, in a prosecution for battery against the defendant’s live-in girlfriend, evidence of the defendant’s domestic abuse of his former wife was admissible.
Holding: The evidence tended to refute the defense of lack of intent to harm:
¶22. Here, the prior acts testified to by Love were very similar to the events surrounding the charged offense and,
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Motive to Flee: Outstanding Warrants — “Not Classic ‘Other Crimes’ Evidence”
State v. Brian D. Seefeldt, 2002 WI App 149, affirmed, 2003 WI 47
For Seefeldt: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶23. We are satisfied that the reference to the outstanding warrants is not classic “other acts” evidence invoking Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2) analysis. Rather, the existence of the warrants is “part of the panorama of evidence” that directly supports Seefeldt’s defense and sits at the heart of his right to present exculpatory evidence.
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Prior Sexual Assaults — 15-25 Years Earlier, not Remote
State v. Eugene P. Opalewski, 2002 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/02
For Opalewski: Lorinne J. Cunningham
Issue/Holding: On charges of first degree sexual assault of a child and incest, evidence of the defendant’s past sexual abuse of his two daughters and the children of a prior girlfriend was admissible under the three-step test of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis.
Privilege – Confidential Informant, § 905.10(3)(b) – Procedure for Disclosing
State v. Marc Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140
For Norfleet: Alan D. Eisenberg
Issue/Holding: Once the trial court reasonably determines that disclosure of an informant’s identity is required, there is no need to hold an in camera hearing, ¶¶13-14.
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Defendant
State v. Scott G. Zuniga, 2002 WI App 233, PFR filed 9/13/02
For Zuniga: Chad G. Kerkman
Issue/Holding: Because the defendant was warned by the judge at a bond-release hearing that if he engaged in misconduct the state would seek a longer sentence, “the parties effectively modified the plea agreement by making the State’s obligation conditional upon Zuniga’s good behavior while in the community. In proceeding under these circumstances,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Presumptive Minimum Penalty
State v. Paul Delao Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52
For Quiroz: Chad G. Kerkman
Issue:Whether defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea on the basis that he was unaware of the three-year presumptive minimum sentence on the weapon enhancer.
Holding:
¶25 Both the complaint and the information contained the dangerous weapon enhancer and set forth the presumptive three-year minimum penalty. Quiroz admitted that he was familiar with both the complaint and the information and was aware that the dangerous weapon enhancer applied when he pled guilty.
Witness – Impeachment — Pending Charges
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Holding: A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.
Character — Extrinsic Proof, § 906.08(2)
State v. Troy D. Moore, 2002 WI App 245
For Moore: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Extrinsic evidence offered by the state solely to bolster a witness’s credibility, by showing that he had provided reliable information leading to the arrests of other drug dealers, violated § 906.08(2). ¶15. (Note: the court holds open the question of whether such evidence might be admissible under § 904.04(2).
Qualifications — Gang Affiliation
State v. Tito J. Long, 2002 WI App 114, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Long: Ann T. Bowe
Issue/Holding: Officer’s background, including “gang training” and investigations into numerous gang-related shootings, made him qualified to testify as to gang activities in city. ¶26.
Expert Witness – Comment On Truthfulness of Another Witness
State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38
For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶8. After reviewing these cases, we can discern some general rules: (1) an expert witness can offer opinion testimony only if it complies with Wis. Stat. § 907.02; (2) the testimony can include opinions regarding symptomatology common to child sexual assault victims; (3) the testimony can include a description of the symptoms exhibited by the victims;