On Point blog, page 5 of 11
Reference to contents of DOC records at ch. 980 trial wasn’t improper
State v. Jon F. Winant, 2014AP1944, District 1, 7/21/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Paperwork created by DOC during the revocation of Winant’s parole and probation for having unsupervised contact with A.G., a minor, was properly admitted at Winant’s ch. 980 trial under § 908.03(8), the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule.
Counsel wasn’t ineffective at TPR trial for failing to objecting to hearsay, “best interest of child” reference
State v. Kamille M., 2014AP2911, District 1, 6/26/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective at Kamille M.’s TPR grounds trial for failing to object to hearsay and to the state’s veiled reference to the best interests of the child during closing arguments.
Transcript of municipal court hearing doesn’t provide evidence supporting stop or refusal
Town of Bloomfield v. Petko Zvetkov Barashki, 2015AP226, District 2, 6/24/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case the court of appeals aptly describes as “unusual,” the court exercises its discretionary power of reversal under § 752.35 to throw out Barashki’s OWI 1st conviction and refusal finding on the grounds that the evidence doesn’t show the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Barashki.
Trial court’s post-verdict meeting with jurors wasn’t error; its exclusion of defendant’s medical records was error, but it was harmless
State v. Wade M. Richey, 2014AP1758-CR, District 3, 3/17/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In this prosecution for reckless driving causing great bodily harm and homicide by operating with a detectable amount of a controlled substance, the circuit court erroneously excluded Richey’s medical records from evidence at trial, though the error was harmless. More interesting, perhaps, is the issue arising out of the trial court’s post-verdict meeting with the jury. While it wasn’t plain error for the trial judge to meet with the jury after receiving its verdict, what happened in this case causes the court of appeals to suggest trial judges tread carefully when doing so.
Court of appeals lowers evidentiary threshold for proving “mental deficiency” under Sec. 940.225(2)(c)
State v. Bernard Ikechukwel Onyeukwu, 2014AP518-CR, 2/26/15, District 4 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs.
The State charged the defendant with 10 counts of sexual assault, 5 of which required proof that the victim suffered from a mental deficiency and that the defendant knew it. The jury acquitted on 6 counts. Just 2 of the convictions required proof of mental deficiency. They spawned interesting grounds for appeal, but this decision just wasn’t up to the task.
Certification as to authenticity of cell phone records was inadequate under § 909.02(12)
Nicole Marie Thomas v. Korry Ardell, 2014AP295, District 4, 11/13/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to admit cell phone records because the proponent of the evidence didn’t provide a proper foundation by presenting either the testimony of a qualified witness or a proper certification proving authenticity.
Counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to request certain jury instructions or objecting to prosecutor’s closing
State v. Ryan P. O’Boyle, 2014AP80-CR, District 1, 11/4/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
O’Boyle’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are rejected because trial counsel’s performance wasn’t deficient.
Admission of other-acts evidence wasn’t error; trial court properly denied mistrial motion
State v. Timothy A. Jago, 2013AP1084-CR, District 1, 2/4/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move in limine to exclude other-acts evidence–specifically, evidence that Jago told the victim he has only pointed a gun at two people in his life, the victim and the man he killed in Illinois. (¶¶4, 16, 19). Jago’s trial lawyer reasonably relied on an agreement with the prosecutor to keep this statement out of evidence.
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to testimony about recorded conversations in Spanish between the defendant and the victim
State v. Adamis Figueroa, 2013AP47-CR, District 1, 12/3/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the testimony of a police department employee about the content of two recorded conversations in Spanish between Figueroa and J.R., who alleged Figueroa had sexually assaulted her several years ago, when she was a child. (During one conversation J.R. wore a wire and spoke with Figueroa in person;
Erroneous admission of other acts evidence was harmless; letter written by attorney to victim at defendant’s behest was properly admitted
State v. Jeffrey A. Adamczak, 2013 WI App 150; case activity
Admission of other acts evidence
Adamczak was charged with sexual exploitation by a therapist in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.22 for having sexual contact with Sabrina. He testified the contact occurred, but only after the patient-therapist relationship was over. (¶¶3, 5). Before trial the state moved to admit the testimony of Sarah and Gail,