On Point blog, page 11 of 11
Opinion Testimony – comment on truthfulness of another, mentally impaired witness
State v. David C. Tutlewski, 231 Wis.2d 379, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tutlewski: Dianne M. Erickson
Issue: Whether one witness’s opinion that state’s witnesses were incapable of lying invaded the jury’s province.
Holding: This testimony violated the rule that one witness may not testify to the credibility of another witness.
The alleged sexual assault victim and her roommate are cognitively disabled.
Credibility — witness’s mental condition.
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.
§ 906.08 – Witness Rehabilitation – Character for truthfulness
State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda
Issue: Whether the defense engaged in attacks on the complainant’s character for truthfulness so as to open the door to opinion testimony that she was truthful.
Holding: § 906.08 supports rehabilitation of a witness “only in limited situations,”
Impeachment — Witness’s Mental Condition
State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998).
For Richard: Robert Henak.
Issue/Holding: 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.