On Point blog, page 8 of 24
Circuit court properly excluded defense evidence, appropriately questioned defendant
State v. Charles A. Page, 2017AP165-CR, District 4, 10/12/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Page claims that the circuit court erred when it classified evidence he sought to introduce as “other acts” evidence and then excluded the evidence because Page hadn’t filed a timely pretrial motion to admit the evidence. He also contends the circuit court abandoned its role as a neutral magistrate in its questioning of Page at trial. The court of appeals rejects the claims.
Evidence that victim was shot exactly 1 year after defendant’s brother was shot and killed deemed admissible
State v. Tyshun DeMichael Young, 2016AP657-CR, 6/20/17, District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Young of attempted 1st-degree intentional homicide and 1st degree recklessly-endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he argued that the trial court should not have permitted the jury to hear evidence that his younger brother was killed exactly one year prior to the date he allegedly shot the victims in this case.
Defense wins on restitution, loses on evidentiary issues
State v. Shawn W. Forgue, 2016AP2414-CR, 5/11/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Forgue, convicted of misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct, appealed the circuit court’s decision to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior violent conduct toward him (i.e. McMorris evidence) and her other bad acts. He also appealed an order setting restitution at $269.50 for the victim’s lost wages and $1,000 to the Crime Victim Compensation Program.
Court of appeals frowns strongly at state, declares error harmless
State v. Kyle Lee Monahan, 2014AP2187, 4/27/17, District 4 (not recommended for publication) review granted 11/13/17; Affirmed 6/29/18; case activity (including briefs)
Kyle Monahan was convicted of OWI homicide after a jury trial. The trial court excluded evidence offered to show that Monahan was not, in fact, driving the vehicle when it crashed. On appeal, the state agrees with Monahan that the evidence should have come in, but argues that its exclusion was harmless. The court of appeals agrees with the state.
Court of appeals rejects evidentiary challenges
State v. John A. Augoki, 2016AP231-CR, 4/25/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Augoki raises two claims on appeal of his jury-trial conviction of three sexual assaults: that the jury heard other-acts evidence it should hot have heard (raised here as plain error) and that the court unconstitutionally limited his cross-examination of a state expert. The court of appeals rejects both in a fact-intensive opinion.
State v. Anton R. Dorsey, 2015AP648-CR, petition for review granted 4/10/2017
Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (composed by On Point based on the petition for review and the state’s response to petition for review)
Is the “greater latitude” rule created by case law regarding admission of other acts evidence in child sex cases codified by § 904.04(2)(b)1., which applies to admission of other acts evidence in cases involving an array of crimes in addition to child sex offenses?
Is evidence of a defendant’s criminal acts committed against a person other than the victim admissible under § 904.04(2)(b)1. to show a generalized motive or purpose by a defendant to “control” a person with whom he is in a relationship?
Trial court’s evidentiary rulings weren’t erroneous
State v. Victoria Ward, 2015AP2638-CR, 3/21/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
To no avail, Ward challenges two evidentiary rulings the circuit court made at her trial on charges of being party to the crimes of maintaining a drug house and possession of heroin with intent to deliver.
Officer’s reference to PBT didn’t require mistrial
City of New Berlin v. Bryon R. Hrin, 2016AP239, District 2, 2/15/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying a mistrial after the arresting officer’s testified that, having completed the field sobriety tests, he “administered a preliminary breath test, PBT.” (¶4).
Alcohol curve defense didn’t preclude jury instruction on BAC presumption
State v. David Robert Brown, 2016AP83-CR, 12/14/2016, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
David Brown was arrested for OWI; the breathalyzer that he took about two hours later showed a .11 BAC. At trial he adduced expert testimony that, given what Brown told the expert he had drunk and when, his BAC would have been .078, just below the legal limit, at the time he was driving. He objects on due process grounds to the court’s instructing the jury, in accord with Wis JI-Criminal 2669, that it could find he was driving under the influence on the basis of the BAC reading alone.
Per curiam court of appeals decision addresses “greater latitude” language in § 904.04(2)(b)
State v. Anton R. Dorsey, 2015AP648-CR, District 3, 12/6/16 (per curiam; not citable as precedent or for persuasive value), petition for review granted, 4/10/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 10; case activity (including briefs)
You may not cite this per curiam opinion as binding precedent or for persuasive value in any Wisconsin court, see § 809.23(3)(b), but On Point is telling you about it because the court of appeals concludes that the purported “greater latitude” rule in § 904.04(2)(b)1. is not a codification of the “greater latitude” rule created by case law regarding admission of other acts evidence in child sex cases. While you can’t cite this decision for authority, you may and should use the court’s reasoning for its conclusion to counter the claim of a prosecutor or circuit judge that § 904.04(2)(b)1. codifies a “greater latitude” rule.