On Point: 15. State of mind

Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

Whether Nieves’s confrontation right was violated when the trial court permitted a witness to testify about a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that, by implication, inculpated Nieves.

Whether a surviving victim’s testimony that someone had told him Nieves was planning to kill him was admissible to show how the victim “felt.”

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an alibi evidence that could have placed Nieves in Illinois on the night of the shooting.

State v. Raymond L. Nieves, 2014AP1623-CR, 4/5/16, District 1 (recommended for publication, but not published); petition for review granted 9/13/16; case activity (including briefs).

This case explores the line between Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968)(which holds that at a joint trial the confession of one defendant is inadmissible against the co-defendant unless the confessing defendant testifies and is subject to cross examination) and Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987)(which holds that a non-testifying defendant’s written confession can be admitted if it is redacted to eliminate all references to his co-defendant). Nieves and his codefendant, Maldonado, were accused of 1st degree intentional homicide. The trial court denied severance and allowed a witness testify about Maldonado’s confession while repeatedly use the term “they” (implicating Maldonado and Nieves). The court of appeals ordered a new trial because admission of the confession evidence violated the Confrontation Clause.

State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2012 WI App 2 (recommended for publication), reissued after initial decision withdrawn; for Prineas: Robert R. Henak; case activity; prior history: State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, 316 Wis. 2d 414, 766 NW.2d 206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,

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether statements made by the declarant to others describing various threats made by the defendant were admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception, § 908.03(3).

Holding:

¶60                        Since there are no Wisconsin cases that have resolved this issue, we look to federal cases for guidance in applying the same rule. 

State v. Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez, 2000 WI App 122, 237 Wis.2d 332, 613 N.W.2d 918
For Santana-Lopez: Rex Anderegg

Issue: Whether a sexual assault defendant’s pretrial offer to take a DNA test is relevant as consciousness of innocence.

Holding: “(A)n offer to undergo DNA analysis [is] relevant to the state of mind of the person making the offer — so long as the person making the offer believes that the test or analysis is possible,