On Point blog, page 6 of 11
Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury. Closing argument — state’s reference to defendant’s failure to call witnesses. Prior inconsistent statement — witness’s lack of recollection
State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, 2012AP1818-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 1/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 124; case activity
Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury
Where inmate victim of battery by another prisoner identified one of his assailants as an inmate “with platinum teeth”
Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to object to evidence. Circuit court’s discretion to admit other acts evidence and child victim’s video statement
State v. Roy H. Beals, 2012AP1079-CR, District 2/1, 7/9/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Ineffective assistance of counsel
Trial counsel in a sexual assault prosecution was not ineffective for failing to object to portions of two different video statements of the child victim (one from 2007, the other from 2009) because the evidence did not prejudice Beals. Trial counsel did object to the first 10 minutes of the 2007 video until after it had been played,
Hearsay – Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2;
State v. Daniel Buchanan, 2011AP830-CR, District 1, 10/30/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Hearsay – Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2
The prior-consistent statement rule allows substantive admissibility of an out-of-court statement if: “(1) the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement; (2) the statement is consistent with the declarant’s testimony; and (3) the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive,”
Evidence: Prior Inconsistent Statements- “State of Mind” Hearsay; Harmless Error / IAC-Prejudice
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2012 WI App 2 (recommended for publication), reissued after initial decision withdrawn; for Prineas: Robert R. Henak; case activity; prior history: State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, 316 Wis. 2d 414, 766 NW.2d 206
Evidence – Prior Inconsistent Statements
Evidence of complainant KAC’s statements made during an alleged sexual assault were admissible as prior inconsistent statements,
Statute of Limitations – Reopened OWI-1st; Excited Utterance
City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity
The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Deficient Performance but non-Prejudicial
State v. David W. Domke, 2011 WI 95, reversing unpublished decision; for Domke: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Although Domke establishes deficient performance in several different respects, he fails to satisfy his burden of showing prejudice.
- Failure to object to hearsay testimony / medical treatment and diagnosis exception inapplicable to counselors and social workers.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
State v. Michael A. Clements, 2010AP1978-CR, District 4, 10/13/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clements: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Counsel’s performance not deficient, against claims that he failed to: impeach the complainant with a prior recorded statement; object on hearsay grounds to admissibility of her statement to a school counselor; object to the State’s closing-argument characterization of the sole defense witness;
Sexual Assault; Charging Document; Excited Utterances; Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Dion M. Echols, 2010AP2626-CR, District 1, 9/27/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Echols: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to establish “great bodily harm” element of 1st-degree sexual assault, § 940.225(1)(a), where the harm was inflicted a short time after the assault.
¶23 In this case, the trial court properly determined that Echols’ shooting M.F. subsequent to the nonconsensual sexual contact constituted great bodily harm.
Evidentiary Foundation / Hearsay: Computer-Generated Report
State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Computer-Generated Report (Electronic Monitoring Device) – Foundation
Expert testimony isn’t necessary to lay a foundation for admissibility for a computer-generated EMD report:
¶28 Closing down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement of expert testimony is an extraordinary one.
SVP – Sexually Motivated Offense; Admissibility, No-Contest Plea; Expert Opinion – Reliance on Hearsay
State v. Albert M. Virsnieks, 2010AP1967, District 2 / 1, 6/21/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity
Virsnieks’ plea-based conviction for burglary supported ch. 980 commitment.
¶35 A Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petition must allege, among other things, that a “person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.”[5] Wis. Stat. § 980.02(2)(a)1. A “[s]exually violent offense” is defined,