On Point blog, page 23 of 68
References to victim’s truthfulness, parochial schooling don’t merit new trial
State v. Joshua J. Feltz, 2014AP2675-CR, District 1, 9/29/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Feltz hasn’t shown his defense was prejudiced when his trial counsel elicited a statement about the truthfulness of the victim. Nor was defense counsel deficient in agreeing to allow the prosecutor to refer in closing to the victim attending a school “where moral guidance is provided.”
Blood-alcohol curve defense didn’t require modification of standard jury instruction on prima facie effect of blood alcohol test results
Little Chute Village Municipal Court v. Dennis M. Falkosky, 2015AP770, District 3, 9/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The trial court didn’t err by refusing to modify the standard OWI jury instruction, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2668, by taking out language giving blood alcohol test results prima facie effect as to the defendant’s BAC at the time of driving and replacing the language with the instruction addressing the blood alcohol curve, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 234.
Statements on 911 call and to police at the scene admissible under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule
State v. Shironski A. Hunter, 2014AP2521-CR, District 1, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The trial court didn’t err in admitting statements witnesses made during a 911 call and to police at the scene of the crime because the statements were excited utterances. Moreover, the statements weren’t testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, so admitting them didn’t violate the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.
State court’s exclusion, on hearsay grounds, of exculpatory evidence didn’t violate right to present defense
Wayne Kubsch v. Ron Neal, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1898, 8/12/15
After being convicted of murdering his wife, her son, and her ex-husband, Kubsch was sentenced to death. He challenged his conviction and sentence in a federal habeas proceeding on three grounds: (1) the Indiana trial court excluded evidence of a witness’s exculpatory hearsay statement to police; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in seeking admission of the witness’s hearsay statement; and (3) his waiver of counsel and choice to represent himself at the sentencing phase of his trial were not knowing and voluntary. The court, over a dissent by one judge as to the first and second claims, rejects Kubsch’s arguments.
Seventh Circuit rejects habeas claim, but cautions about improper use of “course of investigation” rationale for getting around hearsay objections
Renardo Carter v. Timothy Douma, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-3312, 8/6/15
Carter’s trial counsel failed to object to a police officer’s testimony about the hearsay statements of a confidential informant who said Carter was involved in drug dealing. While the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that the failure to object didn’t prejudice Carter, the Seventh Circuit issues a useful warning about the improper use of the “course of investigation” rationale for admitting out-of-court statements.
Temporarily handcuffing defendant during execution of search warrant didn’t amount to “custody” for Miranda purposes
State v. Eriberto Valadez, 2014AP2855-CR, District 1, 9/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under State v. Goetz, 2001 WI App 294, 249 Wis. 2d 380, 638 N.W.2d 386, Valadez wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes during the execution of a search warrant of his home, so the police questioning of him during that time didn’t have to be preceded by Miranda warnings.
Court of appeals rejects multiple challenges to conviction for failure to pay child support
State v. Bradley Wayne Phillips, 2014AP2519-CR, District 1, 9/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Phillips challenges his conviction for failing to pay child support because: (1) the trial court prohibited testimony from an expert witness about whether Phillips was employable; (2) the postconviction court did not find Phillips’s defense counsel ineffective for allegedly failing to present a plea offer from the State; (3) the postconviction court denied Phillips a Machner hearing on his multiple other allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the postconviction court denied Phillips’ motion for resentencing. The court of appeals rejects all of Phillips’s claims.
Trial court properly excluded defendant’s testimony that injunction petitioner was “stalking” him
State v. Randall Ray Madison, 2015AP451-CR & 2015AP452-CR, District 1, 8/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Madison, who was charged with violating a domestic abuse injunction obtained against him by L.M., wanted to testify that L.M. “stalks me.” (¶5). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding this testimony.
The evidence was sufficient to establish chain of custody of blood drawn from defendant
State v. Jacob A. Martinez, 2015AP272, District 2, 8/5/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible of publication); case activity (including briefs)
Though there were multiple tests of the blood drawn from Martinez after his arrest for OWI—one for ethanol, two for THC (the second necessitated by the invalidity of the results of the first test)—the record and testimony are sufficiently complete “to render it improbable that the original item has been exchanged,
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.