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

decision below: unpublished; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether admission into evidence of electronic monitoring daily summary reports requires expert testimony to lay a foundation as to accuracy and reliability.

Whether the daily summary reports fall outside the definition of hearsay because they don’t represent assertions made by a person.

Kandutsch, while under electronic monitoring,

State v. Charles R. Black, 2009AP2036-CR, District 4, 1/13/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Black: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Black BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object

An expert may testify that a complainant’s behavior is consistent with a sexual assault victim’s,

Caselaw prior to amendments to §§ 907.01-.03 may be found: here. These sections were amended by 2011 Wis Act 2 (eff. date 2/1/11), as follows:

907.01 Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. (intro.) If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally all of the following:

(1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful.

City of Mequon v. James E. Haynor, 2010AP466-FT, District 2, 9/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haynor: Peter L. Ramirez; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Expert Witness Qualifications – Lab Chemist: Physiological Effects of Drugs

The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in qualifying as an expert, the supervisor of forensic toxicology at the Wisconsin  State Laboratory of Hygiene on the matter of how certain drugs interact and impair judgment,

State v. Christopher D. Jones, 2010 WI App 133; for Jones: Amelia L. Bizzaro; for Amicus, Innocence Network: Jerome F. Buting; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Amicus Br.

Evidence – Daubert – Bullet Traced to Particular Gun

The court rejects “a blanket rule barring as a matter of course all testimony purporting to tie cartridge cases and bullets to a particular gun”:

¶22 Unlike in the federal system,

State v. Corey Kleser, 2010 WI 88, affirming in part, reversing in part, 2009 WI App 43; for Kleser: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2) – Generally

¶69 Nothing in § 970.032(2) places a limitation on the evidence at a reverse waiver hearing so long as the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence and is relevant to one or more of the three elements set out in the subsection.

supreme court decision; court of appeals decision; for Fischer: James M. Shellow, Robin Shellow, Urszula Tempska

Note: federal habeas relief was subequently granted, Richard M. Fischer v. Ozaukee Co. Circ. Ct., ED Wis No. 10-C-553, 9/29/10.  Federal appellate and district court cases don’t bind Wisconsin courts, which therefore needn’t follow this habeas decision, e.g., State v. Mechtel, 176 Wis. 

State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175
For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether “death scene” analysis from an FBI agent was admissible to establish cause of simultaneous death of two elderly individuals found dead in their home.

Holding:

¶25      The general field of crime scene analysis has been recognized as being a body of specialized knowledge. United State v.

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

Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously admitted an attorney’s expert opinion testimony that LaCount had engaged in a securities transaction.

Holding:

¶19 As noted previously, appellate courts use the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard when reviewing a circuit court’s decision to admit expert testimony.

State v. Bryan James Krueger, 2008 WI App 162
For Krueger: Bradley J. Lochowicz

Issue/Holding:

¶15      Here, Mason was asked whether she had formed an opinion as to whether or not S.B. “was the product of any suggestibility or any coaching.” … Signs of coaching or suggestion could fall into the realm of knowledge that is outside that of a lay-person jury. [10]

¶16      However,