On Point blog, page 16 of 24
State v. Chad W. Voeller, No. 2009AP001596-CR, District II, 7/28/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Voeller: Steven G. Richards; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Counsel – Sanction – Appendix
Contrary to the State’s certification, the appendix does not include the trial court’s findings or opinion. The transcript of the oral findings and opinion should have been included in the appendix.
State v. Daniel Perry Oswald, No. 2009AP2455-CR, District I, 7/20/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oswald: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Consciousness of Guilt
Testimony from the Oswald’s parole agent, that Oswald missed an appointment shortly after the incident in question and that he seemed nervous when they later met, was relevant as “consciousness of guilt.” Admissibility wasn’t substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice,
State v. Miguel Marinez, No. 2009AP567-CR, Wis SCt rev grant 6/29/10
decision below (unpublished); for Marinez: Ralph Sczygelski
Issues (as provided by the court):
Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion by admitting other acts evidence of the minor child’s videotaped statement without excerption of the hand-burning references?
Did the court of appeals err by applying the de novo standard of review to the circuit court’s decision admitting the minor child’s videotaped statement without excerption of the hand-burning references?
Jury Instructions: Exposing Child to Harmful Materials – Accident Defense – Waiver; Evidence: Richard A.P. – Corroboration Rule; Evidence: Character – Polygraph Offer; Voluntary Statement
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.
Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct; Effective Assistance
State v. Raymond A. Habersat, No. 2009AP976-CR, District I, 7/7/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Habersat: Angela Conrad Kachelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct
On Habersat’s trial for first-degree sexual assault of a child, admission of evidence of his 1991 sexual assault of a child to establish motive and intent was a proper exercise of discretion,
State v. Brian A. Oetzman, 2009AP2514-CR, District II, 6/9/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Oetzman: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Traffic Stop – U-Turn
¶8 As such, three rules of the road come into play.Under Wis. Stat. § 346.34(1), no person may turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in Wis.
State v. Miguel E. Marinez, Jr., No. 2009AP567-CR, District IV, 3/18/10, reversed 2011 WI 12
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Reversed, 2011 WI 12
Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct – “Context”
On trial for sexual assault of defendant’s young stepdaughter, evidence that defendant also burned her hand was not admissible to show the “context” of the alleged crime.
¶15 Here,
State v. Brandon J. Carter, 2010 WI App 37
court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding
Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she made during that exchange, ¶¶17-21. The error, though occurring but once and limited to impeachment,
Misconduct Evidence, § 904.04 – Particluar Examples: “Context” – Possession of Drugs and Guns, to Refute Self-Defense
State v. Tony Payano, 2009 WI 86, reversing 2008 WI App 74
For Payano: Patrick Cavanaugh Brennan
Issue: Payano was convicted of shooting at police officers who entered his apartment under a no-knock warrant; he claimed self-defense (i.e., defending himself against unknown armed intruders); over objection, the State presented an informant’s testimony that the day before he had been at Payano’s apartment and seen Payano with drugs and a handgun: the issue is whether this testimony was properly admitted to provide “context” for the event.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Foundational Requirements of Computer-Generated Animation: Probative Value / Authentication
State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78
For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly
Issue/Holding: Foundational requirement of probative value applies to computer-generated animation used as demonstrative exhibit to recreate crime scene:
¶17 Turning to probative value, we examine the State’s failure to lay a foundation for the admission of the animation.