On Point blog, page 1 of 5
COA affirms conviction that results in LWOP sentence
State v. Alvin James Jemison, Jr., 2021AP2207-CR, 7/18/23, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After a jury trial, Jemison was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of an unconscious person (Teresa) as a repeater – serious sex crime and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release to extended supervision. See Wis. Stat. § 939.618(2)(b). After the circuit court denied his postconviction motion without a Machner hearing, Jemison raised three claims on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the completed sexual intercourse charge, (2) the court erred in its admission of other acts evidence, and (3) the court erroneously denied his claims without an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals rejects each of Jemison’s claims and affirms.
COA rejects slew of challenges to theft conviction
State v. Jeffrey L. Blabaum, 2022AP111, 11/10/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Blabaum texted his ex and told her to meet him in Dodgeville to retrieve a few personal items she’d left behind when she moved out of the home they shared in Tennessee. He also sent a picture of one of the items, a bench, which appeared to be sitting in a trailer. His text specified that she should “Come alone.”
Admission of damaging hearsay a recommitment trial wasn’t plain error
Rock County v. H.V., 2021AP1760-FT, 1/13/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This appeal concerns a recurring problem in Chapter 51 cases: the lack of objection to damaging hearsay at the final hearing. If the appellate lawyer raises ineffective assistance of counsel in the circuit court, the case will become moot before the issue is finally resolved. Here, the appellate lawyer when straight to the court of appeals, admitted the issue was forfeited, and argued “plain error.” The court of appeals rejected the argument based on a significant error of constitutional law.
SCOW holds video of child admissible; talks about forfeiture but makes no law
State v. Mercado, 2021 WI 2, 1/20/21, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Mercado stood trial for sexual assault of three young girls. A video of each girl’s forensic interview was played for the jury pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 908.08. Mercado contends that none of the videos were properly admitted. The supreme court holds that he forfeited most of his challenges, and rejects those it considers.
COA creates Confrontation Clause exception for nurse’s “Sexual Abuse Evaluation”
State v. Thomas A. Nelson, 2021 WI App 2; 12/9/20, District 2; case activity (including briefs).
This split court of appeals opinion, which is recommended for publication, has “petition granted” written all over it. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) held that a trial court violates a defendant’s right to confrontation when it receives into evidence out-of-court statements by someone who does not testify at trial, if the statements are “testimonial” and if the defendant has not had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant of the statement. Yet in this case, the court of appeals holds that Nelson’s confrontation rights were not violated when the circuit court admitted a “Sexual Abuse Evaluation” requested by the police for the purpose of collecting evidence even though the author of the evaluation did not testify at trial.
COA: Chapter 51 appellant’s initial brief must anticipate and refute mootness challenge
Rock County v. R.J., 2020AP93, 8/13/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Thank heavens this opinion is not published. R.J’s initial commitment expired before he filed his notice of appeal. According to the court of appeals, R.J. should have sua sponte addressed mootness in his initial brief–before the County ever argued the point. Because R.J. waited to see whether the County would even raise mootness and then addressed the matter in his reply, the court of appeals dismissed his appeal. The court of appeals also made an error of law regarding the “contemporaneous objection” requirement. Hopefully, R.J. will move for reconsideration or petition for review.
Changes to rules of evidence regarding impeachment, bias take effect
The supreme court’s Order 16-02A, 2017 WI 92, effective January 1, 2018, amends some rules of evidence that apply frequently in criminal cases:
Court of appeals rejects evidentiary challenges
State v. John A. Augoki, 2016AP231-CR, 4/25/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Augoki raises two claims on appeal of his jury-trial conviction of three sexual assaults: that the jury heard other-acts evidence it should hot have heard (raised here as plain error) and that the court unconstitutionally limited his cross-examination of a state expert. The court of appeals rejects both in a fact-intensive opinion.
Trial court properly excluded defendant’s testimony that injunction petitioner was “stalking” him
State v. Randall Ray Madison, 2015AP451-CR & 2015AP452-CR, District 1, 8/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Madison, who was charged with violating a domestic abuse injunction obtained against him by L.M., wanted to testify that L.M. “stalks me.” (¶5). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding this testimony.
Circuit court erred in telling jurors they would decide if witness was qualified as expert, but error was harmless
State v. Aaron Schaffhausen, 2014AP2370-CR, District 3, 7/14/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
It was error for the circuit court to tell jurors at the mental-responsibility phase of Schaffhausen’s NGI trial that they would decide whether a defense psychiatrist and psychologist were qualified as expert witnesses, but the error was harmless. In addition, the circuit court did not misuse its discretion in denying the jury’s request during deliberations to provide it with the expert witnesses’ reports.