On Point: D. Relevance, Ch. 904

State v. Andres DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999).
For DelReal: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Holding: At trial on shooting related charges, one detective testified that DelReal’s hands had been swabbed for gunshot residue (with unknown results), but the lead detective testified that he hadn’t. The trial court struck testimony about the swabbing, ruling it irrelevant. Turns out that DelReal was swabbed and,

State v. Rodney G. Zivcic, 229 Wis.2d 119, 598 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Zivcic: John J. Carter

Holding: A “deficient sample” printout from an Intoxilyzer 5000 test is held admissible – not as a test result, but as Zivcic’s failure to provide adequate breath samples (which equals a refusal).

State v. Gordon R. Anderson, Jr., 230 Wis.2d 121, 600 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Anderson: Craig M. Kuhary

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence in this 1st degree homicide trial of a prior sexual assault that resulted in Anderson being sent to prison, as evidence of his motive and intent to kill the deceased so she couldn’t testify against him.

Holding: The prior acts evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.

State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thoms: Steven L. Miller

Holding: On a charge that Thoms sexually assaulted his sister, the trial court allowed the state to introduce evidence that, 14 years before, he had allegedly sexually assaulted both a stranger and his niece, as evidence of “common plan or scheme to obtain sexual gratification by force.”

State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998).

For Richard: Robert Henak.

Diagnosis of multiple personality disorder, to impeach witness: evidence of mental impairment does not, without more, affect witness’s credibility. Without evidence that this condition affected the witness’s recall ability, it is irrelevant.

State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Richard: Robert Henak

Holding: The trial court reversibly erred in refusing to allow an expert psychologist to testify that defendant “did not show any evidence of any diagnosable sexual disorder. … [and] that absent a diagnosable disorder, it is unlikely that such a person would molest a child.”

This evidence was relevant: “[Psychologist] Lodl’s testimony may well have assisted the jury in determining whether Richard,