On Point blog, page 73 of 215
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – “Haseltine / Jensen” Issue
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09
For Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel
Issue/Holding: Unpreserved challenge to sexual assault nurse examiner’s testimony (that abrasions were consistent with forcible intercourse and that no complainant had ever provided her with an inaccurate history) didn’t rise to plain error:
¶12 As the circuit court noted, Stephan did not offer an opinion about the cause of Keri’s abrasion,
§ 904.01, Relevance – Foundational Requirements of Computer-Generated Animation: Probative Value / Authentication
State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78
For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly
Issue/Holding: Foundational requirement of probative value applies to computer-generated animation used as demonstrative exhibit to recreate crime scene:
¶17 Turning to probative value, we examine the State’s failure to lay a foundation for the admission of the animation.
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Flight, “Independent Reason” for, as Ground for Inadmissibility
State v. Pablo G. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120
For Quiroz: Glen B. Kulkoski
Issue/Holding:
¶21 Quiroz claims that under Miller, 231 Wis. 2d at 574, there is an automatic exception to the trial court’s discretionary ability to admit flight evidence whenever a defendant has an independent reason for flight that, if admitted, would unduly prejudice the defendant. Relying on his interpretation of Miller,
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Computer-Generated Animation – “Surprise” Use
State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78
For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly
Issue/Holding:
¶11 The State submits that the computer-generated animation was intended as a demonstrative exhibit. The decision to admit or exclude demonstrative evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion. [6] State v.
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Generally, Authority to Ignore
State v. Benjamin D. Tarrant, 2009 WI App 121
For Tarrant: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶6 Waiver. Before addressing the merits, the State argues that Tarrant’s no contest plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶54, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437.
Deferred Prosecution Agreement – Standard of Review
State v. Chase E. Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117
For Kaczmarski: Harold L. Harlowe, David M. Gorwitz
Issue/Holding:
¶10 Both the State and Kaczmarski agree that the deferred prosecution agreement is analogous to a contract and therefore we draw upon principles of contract law in determining the respective rights of the parties to the agreement. See State v. Roou, 2007 WI App 193,
Deferred Prosecution Agreement – Resumption of Prosecution after Agreement Has Expired
State v. Chase E. Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117
For Kaczmarski: Harold L. Harlowe, David M. Gorwitz
Issue: Whether commission of an offense during the period of the deferred prosecution agreement permitted resumption of the prosecution after that period expired, under the wording of the agreement.
Holding:
¶13 We conclude that the deferred prosecution agreement unambiguously provides that, in the event that Kaczmarski breaches the agreement,
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Charge “Dismissed Outright”: Ambiguous as to Whether State Can Argue Facts Underlying Charge
State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09
For Wesley: Alvin Ugent
Issue/Holding: A plea agreement under which the State dismissed one count “outright” and “(b)oth sides are free to argue” was ambiguous as to whether to State could argue the facts underlying the dismissed charge at sentencing:
¶17 We thus conclude that the plea bargain was ambiguous because the agreement could have meant the State would either (1) dismiss the charges outright,
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Construction of Terms
State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09
For Wesley: Alvin Ugent
Issue/Holding:
¶12 The interpretation of plea agreements is rooted in contract law. See State v. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, ¶12, 274 Wis. 2d 595, 682 N.W.2d 945. Contractual language is ambiguous only when it is “reasonably or fairly susceptible of more than one construction.” State v.
Witness – Personal Knowledge Requirement, § 906.02 – Computer-Generated Animation
State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly
Issue/Holding: Lay witness, who testified to computer-generated animation that attempted to recreate the alleged crime through the eyes of certain witnesses, lacked personal knowledge to undertake this effort:
¶16 As a lay witness,