On Point blog, page 1 of 1
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:
Substitution of judge — § 971.20(4),(5); reassignment of original judge does not make the judge “new” for substitution purposes. Admission of evidence — limiting the playing of audio recordings. Armed robbery, § 943.32 — sufficiency of the evidence.
State v. Keith M. Bohannon, 2013 WI App 87; case activity
Substitution of judge; “new” judge under § 971.20(5)
When a case is reassigned from the original judge to a second judge and then reassigned again back to the first judge, the first judge is the “original” judge assigned to the case under § 971.20(4), not a “new” judge under § 971.20(5). Therefore, a motion to substitute the original judge had to be filed before the arraignment,
Newly Discovered Evidence: Test – SVP Commitment – Revised Actuarial; Completeness Doctrine, § 901.07; Interest of Justice Review
State v. Richard D. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166 (recommended for publication); for Sugden: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; Sugden BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Newly Discovered Evidence – Test – Generally
¶14 In order to be entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Sugden must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the evidence is,
§ 901.07, Completeness Doctrine — Triggered by Accusation Witness Engaged in “Systematic” Lying
State v. Tyrone Booker, 2005 WI App 182
For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen
Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination focusing on inconsistencies in statements of the alleged victim permitted the State to read her entire first statement to the jury under the completeness doctrine; State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997), followed:
¶25 Here, as in Eugenio,
§ 901.07, Completeness Doctrine — Trumping Hearsay Rule
State v. Gordon R. Anderson, Jr., 230 Wis.2d 121, 600 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Anderson: Craig M. Kuhary
Issue: Whether the trial court erred, under the doctrine of completeness, in refusing to admit certain portions of Anderson’s statement to a detective.
Holding: The completeness doctrine trumps the hearsay rule, and the trial court erred in excluding one portion of the statement (though the error was harmless);
§ 901.07, Completeness Doctrine — Oral Statements
State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda
Issue: Whether the state was properly allowed to admit into evidence, under the rule of completeness, certain oral “challenged statements in their entirety, to show consistency on significant factual issues,”