On Point: D. Relevance, Ch. 904

State v. Terry G. Vollbrecht, 2012 WI App 90 (recommended for publication); case activity

§ 974.06 Motion – Laches Inapplicable 

¶17 n. 14:

While we acknowledge the State’s argument that Vollbrecht’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion is barred by laches and its request that we certify the issue to the supreme court, we decline the State’s invitation.  The State concedes that the supreme court has previously held that laches does not apply under § 974.06. 

State v. Kami L. Jennings, 2011AP2206-CR, District 2, 6/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence, introduced by the State, as to the defendant’s belief in reincarnation was inadmissible:

¶15      While the parties did not brief the issue, we hold that Jennings’ testimony should have been excluded as inadmissible character evidence under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(1).  See State v.

State v. James E. Emerson, 2011AP1028-CR, District 3, 6/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Counsel – Substitute 

Given findings made by the lower court after an evidentiary hearing, the court of appeals upholds denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw: counsel was prepared for trial; “(t)his was a dilatory tactic by the defendant,” on the eve of trial after the charge had been pending for some time;

State v. Herbert Ambrose Darden, 2011AP883-CR, District 4, 5/3/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Darden: Angela Conrad Kachelski; case activity

Trial counsel correctly construed the holding of State v. Miller, 231 Wis. 2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999):

¶16      This is not the first time that we have been asked to determine whether or not Miller created a bright-line rule that evidence of flight is inadmissible if there is an independent explanation for the flight that cannot be explained to the jury.  

State v. Daniel H. Hanson, 2012 WI 4, affirming 2010 WI App 146; for Hanson: Robert R. Henak, Chad Lanning; case activity

Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements: “Willful or Wanton Disregard” 

Fleeing does not require “an evil or malicious state of mind” when disregarding an officer’s signal:

¶22  In Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3), “willful” modifies “disregard.”  In that context,

State v. Anrietta M. Geske, 2012 WI App 15 (recommended for publication); for Geske: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sufficiency of Proof – “Utter Disregard” Element (Reckless Homicide, § 940.02(1)) 

Evidence held sufficient to support reckless homicide element of utter disregard of human life, where deaths resulted from high-speed automobile collision after running red light, notwithstanding undisputed evidence that Geske swerved her car in an attempt to avoid the collision. 

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2012 WI App 10 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for Novy: Joseph George Easton; case activity

Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation 

Expert witness testimony, excluded from the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction failure to identify the witness during discovery, was admissible on rebuttal to attack the defendant’s testimony after he testified.

City of Mequon v. Michael R. Wilt, 2011AP931, District 2, 11/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wilt: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

Because the trial court in this bench trial did not rely on the breath test result in finding Wilt guilty of OWI, therefore his argument that the PBT result was inadmissible need not be reached, ¶¶16-17. As to whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction absent the test result:

¶23      Proof of impairment was sufficient and established by clear,

State v. Michael D. Urben, 2011AP982, District 1, 11/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Urben: Andrew Mishlove, Lauren Stuckert; case activity

Notwithstanding evidence that Urben suffered seizures before and after an automobile accident, his refusal to take BAC test wasn’t because of physical disability or disease unrelated to use of alcohol, controlled substances, etc., § 343.305(9)(a)5.c.

¶12      Under Wis.

State v. Stuart J. Gasper, 2010AP1973-CR, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gasper: Mark A. Schoenfeldt; case activity

On a trial for hit-and-run and OWI, evidence that just before the charged events, the defendant’s car struck another car, was not “other acts” evidence within § 904.04(2) but, rather, was admissible to show “context”:

¶13      At the postconviction motion hearing,