On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI first conviction
Village of Greendale v. Stacey King, 2023AP503, 9/17/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
King appeals her OWI first judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, that the circuit court based its rulings on bias against her instead of on the relevant law, and that the field sobriety test should not have been presented to the jury. The COA rejects these arguments and affirms.
COA upholds circuit court’s decision to exclude defendant’s proffered evidence regarding field sobriety tests at PAC trial
State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial.
No error in limiting cross examination and rejecting offer of proof about FSTs at refusal hearing
State v. Kyle R. Christoffersen, 2014AP1282, District 2, 1/28/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The judge at Christoffersen’s refusal hearing didn’t violate Christoffersen’s due process rights when it limited cross-examination about the arresting officer’s training on, and administration of, field sobriety tests and refused to allow Christoffersen to make an offer of proof by questioning the officer. (¶¶5-7, 14).
Expert Witness Qualifications; Admissibility – Field Sobriety Tests; WI (Drugs) – Sufficiency of Evidence
City of Mequon v. James E. Haynor, 2010AP466-FT, District 2, 9/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haynor: Peter L. Ramirez; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Expert Witness Qualifications – Lab Chemist: Physiological Effects of Drugs
The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in qualifying as an expert, the supervisor of forensic toxicology at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene on the matter of how certain drugs interact and impair judgment,
§ 904.01, Relevance – Generally – FSTs
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36
For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding:
¶14. In Wisconsin, the general standard for admissibility is very low. Generally, evidence need only be relevant to be admissible. See Wis. Stat. § 904.02; State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 411, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998) (“All relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise provided by law.”).
§ 904.01, Relevance – Field Sobriety Test
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36
For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding: Field sobriety tests (alphabet and finger-to-nose tests; and heel-to-toe walk) “are observational tools, not litmus tests that scientifically correlate certain types or numbers of ‘clues’ to various blood alcohol concentrations,” ¶17. Thus, the officer’s observations of Wilkens’ performance isn’t treated “any differently from his other subjective observations of Wilkens, i.e., his red and glassy eyes,