On Point blog, page 18 of 24
§ 904.03, Unfair Prejudice – Witness’s Reference to Knowing Defendant from Jail as Basis for Ability to Identify Him
State v. Eric D. Cooks, 2006 WI App 262
For Cooks: Joseph E. Redding
Issue/Holding: Failure to object to a witness’s reference to having known the defendant from jail was not deficient performance, because this evidence was admissible anyway:
¶47 Furthermore, Cooks’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised on a correct trial court ruling and cannot succeed. See Ziebart,
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Misconduct Evidence, Child Sexual Assault
State v. Randy Mcgowan, 2006 WI App 80
For Mcgowan: Dianne M. Erickson
Issue/Holding:
¶23 Here, the offered evidence (testimony of forced fellatio, performed by a five-year-old child victim, followed by urination in the victim’s mouth) undoubtedly aroused the jury’s “sense of horror” and “provoke[d] its instinct to punish.” See Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 789-90. Revulsion as to this conduct is not significantly mitigated by the fact that McGowan was only ten years old at the time and the event was an isolated incident.
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) – Bias of Prosecution Witness
State v. Walter T. Missouri, 2006 WI App 74
For Missouri: Jeffrey W. Jensen
Issue: Whether evidence of police officer Mucha’s mistreatment of a 3rd-party (Scull) in an otherwise unrelated but similar instance was admissible to further defendant Missouri’s claim that Mucha was untruthful in denying physical abuse against and planting evidence on Missouri.
Holding: This evidence satisfied the three-part test of State v.
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) – “Reverse” Misconduct – Misidentification of Defendant on Similar Crime
State v. Bruce T. Davis, 2006 WI App 23
For Davis: Russell Bohach
Issue/Holding: Evidence that Davis was misidentified as the perpetrator of a crime he could not have committed but which was similar to the crimes he was tried for was admissible:
¶28 Looking at the first factor, the State concedes that this witness’s testimony was offered for identification purposes, an admissible purpose under Wis.
§ 904.04 – Greater Latitude Rule in Sexual Assaults, Generally
State v. Randy Mcgowan, 2006 WI App 80
For Mcgowan: Dianne M. Erickson
Issue/Holding:
¶14 … The supreme court has provided significant guidance concerning the use of other acts evidence in child sexual assault cases. In State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, the court discussed the three-step framework, which was originally set forth in State v.
§ 904.04 – Greater Latitude Rule in Sexual Assaults — Admissibility of Assault by One Child on Another Child 8 Years Before Charged Offense
State v. Randy Mcgowan, 2006 WI App 80
For Mcgowan: Dianne M. Erickson
Issue/Holding:
¶20 We cannot conclude that the allegations are sufficiently factually similar to justify admission of Janis’s testimony as other acts evidence. Assuming the truthfulness of both Sasha and Janis for purposes of this analysis, we conclude that a single assault, by one young child on another young child, eight years before repeated assaults by an adult on a different child who was three years older than the first victim,
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Misconduct Evidence, Marijuana Use — § 940.10(1), Homicide by Negligent Operation of Vehicle
State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1: Evidence of the driver’s marijuana use just before the accident resulting in the charged homicide by negligent use of vehicle was relevant and admissible:
¶48 Although the toxicology expert could not tie the level of THC detected in Schutte’s blood to a specific level of impairment,
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Innocence – Offer to Take Polygraph
State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman
Issue/Holding:
¶39 Finally, we determine that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to admit testimony regarding Shomberg’s offer to take a polygraph examination. … However, such an offer is only “relevant to the state of mind of a person making the offer as ‘long as the person making the offer believes that the test or analysis is possible,
§ 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,