On Point: D. Relevance, Ch. 904

State v. Steven P. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5, affirming unpublished opinion
For Muckerheide: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: On a trial of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, § 940.09(1)(b), where the defense was that the death would have occurred anyway because the deceased grabbed the wheel just prior to the accident, evidence that the deceased “had, on prior occasions, gestured as if to grab the steering wheel of his father’s vehicle and,

State v. Patrick Jackson, 2007 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/07
For Jackson: Marcella De Peters

Issue/Holding: On a prosecution for felon in possession of a firearm, based on the allegation that the defendant “handled” a gun in a gun store, evidence of a 3rd-party’s prior felony conviction was admissible, where: the identity of the person who touched the gun was disputed; and, the 3rd-party acknowledged in an extrajudicial statement,

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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,

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,