On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Challenges to sexual assault conviction rejected
State v. Nathan J. Friar, 2019AP1578-CR, District 4, 10/22/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Friar challenges his conviction for sexual assault by use of force, claiming the circuit court erroneously admitted certain evidence and that his trial lawyer was ineffective. The court of appeals rejects his challenges.
Failure to develop defendant’s testimony, object to hearsay didn’t prejudice defense
State v. Akim A. Brown, 2017AP1332-CR, District 1, 11/6/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Brown, charged with second degree sexual assault of L.S., testified their sexual encounter was consensual. He argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit from him certain testimony that would have helped show the encounter was consensual and for failing to object to testimony about L.S.’s prior consistent statements. The court of appeals concludes counsel’s shortcomings didn’t prejudice Brown’s defense.
Defendant’s history of controlling and abusing girlfriends admissible as “other acts” evidence
State v. Angus Murray McArthur, 2016AP2315-17-CR, 2/20/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This opinion recounts in detail MacArthur’s controlling, violent behavior toward K.W., the victim in this case, and toward 4 of his previous girlfriends. The lead issues are (1) whether McArthur’s conduct toward the previous girlfriends was admissible as “other acts” evidence, and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when, during the jury trial, a detective read K.W.’s statement which described MacArthur’s “relationship rules” and his escalating violence toward her. The court of appeals answers both questions “no.”
Trial court’s evidentiary rulings weren’t erroneous
State v. Victoria Ward, 2015AP2638-CR, 3/21/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
To no avail, Ward challenges two evidentiary rulings the circuit court made at her trial on charges of being party to the crimes of maintaining a drug house and possession of heroin with intent to deliver.
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State v. Wade M. Richey, 2014AP1758-CR, District 3, 3/17/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
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,”
Hearsay – Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2
State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams
Issue: Whether the alleged victim’s entire testimony at prior proceedings was properly admitted into evidence, under prior consistent statement or rule of completeness rationales.
Holding:
¶25. The trial court admitted the entire prior testimony under two theories: (1) the testimony constituted prior consistent statements under Wis. Stat.
Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2
State v. Earl L. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Miller: Eduardo M. Borda
Issue: Whether a prior consistent statement is admissible where the declarant hasn’t been specifically cross-examined about his/her prior statement.
Holding: The requirement in § 908.01(4)(a) that the prior consistent statement declarant be subject to cross-examination concerning the statement requires only the opportunity for cross-examination, and not an actual inquiry into the area.