On Point: M. Corroboration rule

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.”

State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2020AP32, petition for review of a published decision granted 1/11/2022; affirmed 2/21/23; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from the petition):

Whether the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard in determining that admission of DNA evidence in violation of [Thomas’s] right of Confrontation was harmless?

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that [Thomas’s] confession to a sexual assault was corroborated by a significant fact?

State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2021 WI App 55; Review granted 1/11/22; affirmed 2/21/23; case activity (including briefs)

This is the appeal from Thomas’s second conviction at trial for the false imprisonment, sexual assault and murder of his wife. (The first conviction was ultimately undone by the Seventh Circuit, which held that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to seek out certain expert testimony.) Thomas raises three issues. He claims he was convicted of the sexual assault count in violation of the corroboration rule, because the only evidence it occurred was his own confession. He also says all three convictions were obtained in violation of his right to confrontation, as the state introduced a hearsay lab report concerning DNA evidence during cross-examination of his expert. And he argues one of the jurors was objectively biased because she at least believed she was a cousin of one state’s witness. The court rejects all three claims.

State v. David McAlister, Sr., 2018 WI 34, 4/17/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals order, 2014AP2561; case activity

A jury convicted McAlister in 2007 of three counts having to do with an attempted and a completed armed robbery. The state’s case was founded on the testimony of two men (Jefferson and Waters) who had committed the crimes: they said McAlister was also involved. At trial, McAlister’s counsel impeached them by showing they had received consideration from the state in exchange for their testimony. But he couldn’t provide any direct evidence they had lied. Now he can, but the SCOW majority says it’s not good enough, even to get a hearing on his motion.

State v. J.F.K., 2016AP941, District 3, 12/28/16 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Fifteen-year-old J.F.K.  confessed to having sex twice with his 17-year-old ex-girlfriend. At the delinquency hearing, the State (1) played his video confession, (2) offered the testimony of a detective who said that police had referred the girlfriend to be charged for having sex with J.F.K., and (3) a JOC showing that the ex-girlfriend had pled guilty to 4th degree sexual assault but, of course, did not name the victim.

State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2010 WI App 104, reversed, 2011 WI 63, see: this post; for Gonzalez: Kristin Anne Hodorowski; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Jury Instructions – Exposing Child to Harmful Materials

The pattern instruction on exposing a child to harmful material, § 948.11(2)(a), accurately recites the elements, including scienter.

¶11 We agree with the trial court’s assessment that the pattern instruction accurately states the law.

State v. Edward Bannister, 2007 WI 86, 302 Wis. 2d 158, 734 N.W.2d 892, reversing 2006 WI App 136

Issue/Holding: Bannister’s confession to giving morphine to someone who died from an overdose of the substance was sufficiently corroborated to support his his conviction:

¶ 22 We first address whether the State satisfied the corroboration rule during the course of Bannister’s trial. The corroboration rule is a common-law standard.