On Point blog, page 14 of 14
§904.04 – Greater Latitude Rule
State v. Edward A. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629, on certification, habeas denied, Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F. 3d 807 (7th Cir. 2003)
For Hammer: Rex Anderegg
Issue: Whether, in a trial for sexual assault of several adolescent males while staying at defendant’s parents’ home, evidence that defendant fondled an adult male, 5-7 years earlier while a guest at his home in Ohio,
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — “Reverse” Misconduct — 3rd-party similar crime as exoneration of defendant
State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 227 Wis.2d 285, 595 N.W.2d 661 (1999), on reconsideration, State v. Scheidell, 230 Wis.2d 189, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999), reversing State v. Scheidell, 220 Wis.2d 753, 584 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Scheidell: Mitchell E. Cooper, SPD, Madison.
Holding: Scheidell sought to introduce evidence that, while he was in jail awaiting trial on this sexual assault-related case,
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Motive and Intent.
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 in admitting evidence in this 1st degree homicide trial of a prior sexual assault that resulted in Anderson being sent to prison, as evidence of his motive and intent to kill the deceased so she couldn’t testify against him.
Holding: The prior acts evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Harmless Error
State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thoms: Steven L. Miller
Holding: On a charge that Thoms sexually assaulted his sister, the trial court allowed the state to introduce evidence that, 14 years before, he had allegedly sexually assaulted both a stranger and his niece, as evidence of “common plan or scheme to obtain sexual gratification by force.”
§ 904.01, Relevance – “Profile Character” (Richard A.P.) Evidence (Absence of Sex Offender Characteristics)
State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Richard: Robert Henak
Holding: The trial court reversibly erred in refusing to allow an expert psychologist to testify that defendant “did not show any evidence of any diagnosable sexual disorder. … [and] that absent a diagnosable disorder, it is unlikely that such a person would molest a child.”
This evidence was relevant: “[Psychologist] Lodl’s testimony may well have assisted the jury in determining whether Richard,