On Point blog, page 3 of 24
Defense win! COA holds mistrial was necessary where jury heard prejudicial, inadmissible testimony
State v. Juan J. Castillo, 2020AP983, 6/29/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Castillo was tried for the alleged sexual assault of his five-year-old cousin when he was sixteen. He wished to call an expert to testify about the factors that can affect the reliability of a child’s allegations of assault; the circuit court disallowed this testimony. The court of appeals upholds the circuit court’s ruling on that matter, concluding that the testimony didn’t “fit” the facts of this case. But the court does order a new trial, holding the circuit court should have granted the mistrial Castillo requested after the now-8-year-old alleged victim “blurted out” on the stand that Castillo had assaulted three other girls, and after his sister gave testimony suggesting he was incarcerated at the time of trial.
SCOW affirms new trial in unusual homicide case involving a self-defense claim
State v. Alan M. Johnson, 2021 WI 61, 6/16/21, affirming in part and reversing in part a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
In a case presenting a highly unusual set of facts, the supreme court agrees with the court of appeals that Johnson is entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on perfect self-defense. However, the supreme court reverses the court of appeals’ decision as to the admissibility of other-acts evidence relating to the victim.
Court of appeals addresses pretrial rulings on other acts, use of audiovisual recording
State v. Omar S. Coria-Granados, 2019AP1989-CR, District 4, 2/11/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In this child sexual assault the circuit court denied the state’s motions to admit other-acts evidence under § 904.04(2) and to allow the use of an audiovisual statement of a complainant under § 908.08. In a long (39 page) decision addressing the multiple legal questions and fact specific issues, the court of appeals reverses the circuit court’s other-acts order but affirms the denial of the motion to admit the audiovisual statement.
COA holds other acts issue forfeited
State v. James Lee Ballentine, 2019AP1597, 1/20/21, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Ballentine stood trial for three counts of delivering drugs. The charges arose from controlled buys; James was the informant and buyer. Ballentine’s defense was that James–seeking mitigation in his own drug charges–had framed Ballentine. Ballentine’s theory was that James had come into the alleged sales with the drugs already on him, and that he had concealed this fact by hiding them in such a way that the supervising police officers’ pat-downs would not find them. As part of this defense, Ballentine wished to adduce testimony that James had successfully concealed drugs from a police pat-down before, during an arrest; the drugs were eventually recovered after James ditched them in the police station.
Circuit court erred in excluding prior testimony, other acts evidence
State v. Frank P. Smogoleski, 2019AP1780-CR, District 2, 11/18/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state wins its appeal of two circuit court orders, one excluding the use of preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who is now dead, the other excluding other-acts evidence.
Challenges to sexual assault conviction rejected
State v. Nathan J. Friar, 2019AP1578-CR, District 4, 10/22/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Friar challenges his conviction for sexual assault by use of force, claiming the circuit court erroneously admitted certain evidence and that his trial lawyer was ineffective. The court of appeals rejects his challenges.
COA finds no error in denying mistrial or in refusing self-defense instruction
State v. Raymond R. Barton, 2019AP1990, 9/24/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Barton was convicted at trial of three counts involving battery of his adult stepson. He argues the trial court should have granted the mistrial he asked for when his daughter testified she was afraid that something had happened because “things had happened before.” He also asserts the court should have instructed the jury on self-defense. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.
SCOW to address how the castle doctrine interacts with perfect self-defense
State v. Alan M. Johnson, 2018AP2318-CR, review of published opinion granted 9/16/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issues for review (from the State’s Petition)
1. Was Johnson entitled to a jury instruction for perfect self-defense based on his testimony concerning his motivation for trespassing with a loaded firearm in KM’s house, despite the fact that KM was unarmed, shot five times, and Johnson could not recall anything about the shooting other than that KM “lunged” at him?
2. Was Johnson entitled to submission of the lesser-included offense of second-degree reckless homicide under the above circumstances?
3. Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in excluding evidence of alleged child pornography Johnson found on KM’s computer before he killed KM?
Defendant is denied a new trial, but wins resentencing
State v. Bobby L. McNeil, 2019AP467-CR & 2019468-CR, District 1, 7/21/10 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
McNeil was convicted of drug offenses, obstructing, and bail jumping after a trial in two consolidated cases. His challenges to the joinder of the cases and to various evidentiary issues are rejected, but he prevails on the challenge to his sentence because the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing.
Seizure of cell phone was lawful; admission of other acts evidence was appropriate
State v. Samuel L. Nichols, Jr., 2019AP802-CR, District 4, 7/16/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nichols was charged with capturing images of nudity without consent and sexual assault. He argues the police didn’t have probable cause to seize his cell phone and therefore the images they found on it must be suppressed. He also asserts other-acts evidence was erroneously admitted at his trial. The court of appeals rejects both claims.