On Point blog, page 4 of 5
Evidence: Prior Inconsistent Statements- “State of Mind” Hearsay; Harmless Error / IAC-Prejudice
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2012 WI App 2 (recommended for publication), reissued after initial decision withdrawn; for Prineas: Robert R. Henak; case activity; prior history: State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, 316 Wis. 2d 414, 766 NW.2d 206
Evidence – Prior Inconsistent Statements
Evidence of complainant KAC’s statements made during an alleged sexual assault were admissible as prior inconsistent statements,
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Failure to Challenge Invalid DNA Search Warrant – Lack of Prejudice; Right to Present Defense: DNA Evidence
State v. Omark D. Ward, 2011 WI App 151 (recommended for publication); for Ward: Mary Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – DNA Search Warrant
Court commissioner’s order that Ward provide DNA sample violated “oath or affirmation” requirement for warrants:
¶10 Unless a person consents to giving a sample of his or her DNA, or there are exigent circumstances, or there are other exceptions that are not material here,
Newly Discovered Evidence; In Camera Inspection, Psychological Treatment Records; Evidence – Restriction on Expert Testimony
State v. Crystal P. Keith, 2010AP1667-CR, District 1, 5/24/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Keith: John A. Pray; case activity
On Keith’s conviction for reckless homicide in beating death of foster son, statements of her biological daughter (such as, “Why does mama have to go to jail for what my daddy did”) didn’t satisfy the test for newly discovered evidence. Keith’s confession to the police “was so detailed”
Right to Present Defense – Hearsay Testimony; “Shiffra” Disclosure; Judicial Bias
State v. Bryan Peter Leather, 2010AP354-CR, District 1, 4/5/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Leather: Rex Anderegg; case activity
Leather argues he was entitled to call the prosecutor as a witness to testify about the complainant’s hearsay statements to her. The 6th amendment right to present a defense (confrontation and compulsory process) isn’t absolute and in particular doesn’t extend to irrelevant evidence. The offer of proof in support of admissibility shows that the complainant’s statements to the prosecutor weren’t inconsistent with her testimony,
Right to Present Defense – Prosecutorial Intimidation of Witness; Comment on Guilt
State v. Jevell Williams, 2010AP1266-CR, District 1, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Williams: Bradley J. Wochowicz; case activity; Williams BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Right to Present Defense – Prosecutorial Intimidation of Witness
The prosecutor didn’t violate Williams’s right to present a defense by raising the possibility that his alibi witness had potentially violated a no-contact order by contacting a State’s witness on Williams’s behalf.
Evidence – Ongoing Conflict with Deceased, Hearsay – Residual Exception, 3rd-Party Guilt; Sufficiency of Evidence – Homicide
State v. Kevin M. Moore, 2009AP3167-CR, District 2, 12/15/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Moore: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Moore BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Frequenting “Gentleman’s Club” as Source of Friction with Deceased
Evidence that Moore spent much time and money at a local “gentleman’s club,” offered by the State to as support for an “ongoing conflict”
Exculpatory Evidence Preservation; Right to Inform Jury of Evidence Destruction
State v. Joshua Lashawn Munford, 2010 WI App 168 (recommended for publication); for Munford: Joseph L. Sommers; Munford BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Munford’s claim that police destruction of his van violated due process is rejected, because the van didn’t have apparent exculpatory value. His defense against the homicide charge was that someone else fired shots that went through the van and struck the victim who was on the street.
Richard M. Fischer v. Ozaukee Co. Circ. Ct., 741 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Wis. 2010)
federal habeas decision (pdf file: here), granting relief in State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6; respondent’s Rule 59 motion to amend judgment denied 1/7/11
Habeas Review – Right to Present Defense – Expert Opinion, Based PBT
Preventing Fisher from adducing expert opinion he wasn’t driving with a prohibited alcohol content based on analysis of his PBT, because of the absolute evidentiary bar under § 343.303 on PBTs,
State v. Richard M. Fischer, 2010 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 152
supreme court decision; court of appeals decision; for Fischer: James M. Shellow, Robin Shellow, Urszula Tempska
Note: federal habeas relief was subequently granted, Richard M. Fischer v. Ozaukee Co. Circ. Ct., ED Wis No. 10-C-553, 9/29/10. Federal appellate and district court cases don’t bind Wisconsin courts, which therefore needn’t follow this habeas decision, e.g., State v. Mechtel, 176 Wis.
State v. Jerry L. Miller, 2009AP1509-CR, Dist I, 1/20/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)
Statement against Interest, Exculpating Defendant
Against-interest statement exculpating defendant admissible. Declarant unavailable, given reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to subpoena. Contrary to trial court, statement not ambiguous but was direct admission of crime and corroborated by having been made to different people on different occasions.