On Point: G. Opinions/experts, Ch. 907

State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2007 WI App 116, affirmed, 2008 WI 59, ¶20
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶19      Under Wis. Stat. § 907.04, “[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” See, e.g.,

State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman

Issue/Holding: Trial court’s refusal to admit expert testimony on factors influencing witness’s ability to identify a stranger during a lineup procedure, in particular the distorting effect of a simultaneous as opposed to sequential procedure, was not an erroneous exercise of discretion:

¶15     In 2002,

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

Issue/Holding: Where the State’s expert witness never interviewed the victim (nor viewed a videotape of the victim’s statement), the defendant wasn’t entitled to a psychological examination of the victim pursuant to State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d 346, 359-60, 507 N.W.2d 365 (Ct. App. 1993), ¶27.

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

Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption:

¶42      Here,

Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion
For Shannon R.: Brian C. Findley, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely to be able to meet the conditions for return of her children.

Holding:

¶40      In deciding the issue of foundation,

State v. Victor K. Johnson, 2004 WI 94, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals

Issue: Whether the State impermissibly cross-examined the defendant about the truthfulness of another witness.

Holding:

¶2. We conclude that the purpose and effect of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Johnson was to impeach Johnson’s credibility, not to bolster the credibility of another witness, because both Johnson and the other witness were testifying to their personal observations about the same events.

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, affirmed, 2004 WI 70
For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella
Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL

Issue/Holding: “(N)o witness may testify as an expert on issues of domestic law; ‘the only “expert” on domestic law is the court.’ Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund v.

State v. Joseph F. Rizzo II, 2003 WI App 236, PFR filed 11/13/03, on appeal after remand of State v. Rizzo I, 2002 WI 20
For Rizzo: Kathryn A. Keppel, Raymond M. Dall’osto

Issue: Whether Rizzo is entitled to a psychological examination of the sexual assault complainant pursuant to State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d 346, 507 N.W. 2d 365 (Ct.

State v. Steven G. Walters, 2003 WI App 24, reversed on other grds., 2004 WI 18
For Walters: Jenelle L. Glasbrenner, David A. Danz

Issue/Holding:

¶28. Again, the admissibility of expert testimony is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Friedrich, 135 Wis. 2d at 15. At the offer of proof hearing, Walters’s proposed expert, Dr.

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth
Issue/Holding: Fact that probaiton/parole agent wasn’t mental health specialist didn’t preclude him offering lay expert opinion on likelihood of ch. 980 respondent re-offending. Lay expertise may be found under § 907.02, based on relevant experience, education, and/or training.