On Point blog, page 11 of 24
Joinder of sexual assault claims and admission of evidence showing change in victim’s personality upheld
State v. John M. Lattimore, 2013AP911-CR, District 4, 9/11/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Lattimore was convicted of 2nd-degree sexual assault with use of force and false imprisonment against S.M. He appealed trial court decisions to: (1) join a count of 3rd-degree sexual assault against a different victim, M.H., to S.M.’s trial, (2) exclude the text of a Facebook message sent by S.M.’s brother to the defendant right after the assault, and (3) admit testimony about S.M.’s personality change after the assault. He had no luck with the court of appeals.
SCOW uses “harmless error” to dodge further anaylsis of statute barring use of PBT tests in OWI-related trials
State v. Luis M. Rocha-Mayo, 2014 WI 57, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; 7/11/14; majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity
Why tackle thorny legal issues surrounding Wis. Stat. §343.303’s prohibition against the use of PBTs at OWI trials when you can decide the case on harmless error grounds? In this case, the PBT was ordered and administered by ER staff, not law enforcement. SCOW gets to pick and choose its cases. So when it grants review, the parties, their lawyers, the lower courts, and the bar hope the court will decide the legal issues, not re-review the evidence presented to the jury. This fractured decision deserves a close look in order to understand what has and has not been decided about the use of PBTs in OWI trials.
SCOW: State can’t use defendant’s incriminating statements made as part of on-going, State-initiated, plea negotiations
State v. Rafeal Lyfold Myrick, 2014 WI 55, 7/10/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity
When does negotiation become agreement? In State v. Myrick, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s resolution of this question was critical in determining whether the State could use incriminating statements that the defendant had made at a co-defendant’s preliminary hearing. The issue arose because the plea negotiations (one theory) or the plea agreement (alternate theory) fell apart, leading to the defendant’s trial on the original homicide charge. On Point’s Special Guest Michael Tobin, Deputy SPD, offers his take on the issues.
Trial court didn’t err in excluding evidence of lab mistakes from years before defendant’s blood sample was tested
Fond du Lac County v. Douglas L. Bethke, 2013AP2297, District 2, 4/30/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it excluded evidence of particular crime lab errors that happened years before Bethke’s blood sample was analyzed.
Evidence that defendant asked victim to lie and choked her admitted as “other acts” evidence
State v. Daniel K. Rogers, 2012AP186-CR, District 4, 4/17/14; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The defendant, having been charged with sexual assault and released on bond, allegedly choked his victim to make her to lie on his behalf at trial. The circuit court admitted this as § 904.04(2) “other acts” evidence at the sexual assault trial, and the COA affirmed because the evidence showed consciousness of guilt.
Evidence of victim’s violent character excluded; evidence of defendant’s other violent acts admitted
State v. Brian J. Anderson, 2013AP913-CR, District 1, 4/15/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Anderson appealed his conviction for 1st-degree intentional homicide arguing that the trial court should have admitted evidence of his victim’s violent character under State v. McMorris and excluded “other acts” evidence under State v. Sullivan and § 904.04(2) and 904.03. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.
10-year history of drug-dealing deemed admissible in case where state declined to charge drug crimes
State v. Jimmy L. Powell, 2013AP1111-CR, 3/27/14, District 4; (not recommended for publication); case activity
This appeal stems from a 1st-degree reckless injury conviction. Powell, a drug dealer, ran over and/or cut his client’s throat during a deal. His enthusiastic, 38-page initial brief raises 7 issues for review. This post examines the court of appeals’ decision on 2 of them.
“Other Acts” Evidence Issue: Whether the circuit court erred in admitting “other acts”
Admission of other-acts evidence wasn’t error; trial court properly denied mistrial motion
State v. Timothy A. Jago, 2013AP1084-CR, District 1, 2/4/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move in limine to exclude other-acts evidence–specifically, evidence that Jago told the victim he has only pointed a gun at two people in his life, the victim and the man he killed in Illinois. (¶¶4, 16, 19). Jago’s trial lawyer reasonably relied on an agreement with the prosecutor to keep this statement out of evidence.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: When a defendant raises self-defense, evidence of a victim’s reputation for violence is admissible to show who was the first aggressor even if the defendant was unaware of that reputation
State v. Curtis L. Jackson, 2014 WI 4, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; Justice Bradley concurs; Chief Justice Abrahamson dissents; case activity
In a decision that clarifies the rules regarding evidence of the victim’s character in cases involving self-defense, the supreme court holds that a defendant may present evidence about the victim’s reputation for violence even if the defendant was not aware of that reputation at the time of the offense.
State v. Raphfeal Lyfold Myrick, 2012AP2513-CR, petition for review granted
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point):
Wis. Stat. § 904.10 provides that evidence of statements that a person made in court in connection with an offer to the prosecuting attorney to plead guilty or no contest to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible in any criminal proceedings against the person who made the offer.