On Point: D. Relevance, Ch. 904

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.”).

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,

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue/Holding: On charges of drug trafficking while armed, possession of guns (along with flash suppressor and bulletproof vest) was admissible as relevant for purposes other than “bad character,” ¶¶35-39. (State v. Spraggin, 77 Wis. 2d 89, 252 N.W.2d 94 (1977) and State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis.

State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115
For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas

Issue/Holding: Other acts evidence that on two prior occasions the defendant, while disciplining her child, had struck the child with sufficient force to cause injury and require government intervention, was relevant and admissible under § 904.04 to prove the intent element of the charged offense of abuse of a child, § 948.03(2)(b), and also to disprove the defense of reasonable discipline.

State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218
For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams

Issue: Whether defendant’s letter to the trial court, stating that he did not want the case to go to trial; that he wished to be placed in a facility in the care of “mental doctors”; and that the court sentence him for a Class B felony, was admissible.

Holding:

¶20      We agree with Norwood that Wis.

State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs

Issue/Holding: Evidence of flight is not other-acts evidence but, rather, “an admission by conduct”; thus, evidence that Anderson fled the state after learning that the police had been contacted was admissible, ¶29, citing, State v. Earl L. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 462, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct.

State v. Gregory J. Franklin, 2004 WI 38, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Franklin: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶16. In order to be admissible in a ch. 980 proceeding, all evidence must be relevant and that relevance must not be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Wis. Stat. § 904.01; Wis. Stat. § 904.03;

State v. Gregg A. Pfaff, 2004 WI App 31
For Pfaff: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶26. While a polygraph test result is inadmissible in Wisconsin, see State v. Dean, 103 Wis. 2d 228, 279, 307 N.W.2d 628 (1981), an offer to take a polygraph test is relevant to an assessment of the offeror’s credibility and may be admissible for that purpose. State v.

State v. Steven G. Walters, 2004 WI 18, reversing 2003 WI App 24
For Walters: David A. Danz

Issue/Holding:

¶16. … The term “Richard A.P. evidence” comes from a decision of the court of appeals in which a defendant accused of molesting a child sought to introduce character evidence through the testimony of a psychologist. State v.

State v. Gregg A. Pfaff, 2004 WI App 31
For Pfaff: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶34. Whether photographs are to be admitted is a matter within the trial court’s discretion. State v. Lindvig, 205 Wis. 2d 100, 108, 555 N.W.2d 197 (Ct. App. 1996). We will not disturb the court’s discretionary decision “unless it is wholly unreasonable or the only purpose of the photographs is to inflame and prejudice the jury.”