On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Jason M. Jacobs, 2012 WI App 104 (recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – Consent – Blood Draw

Following a fatal traffic accident, Jacobs performed field sobriety tests well enough that he wasn’t placed under arrest, but he was asked to submit to a blood draw. Jacobs called his attorney, who advised him not to consent to the draw, but Jacobs nonetheless agreed to go to the hospital with an officer to have a blood test.

State v. Terry G. Vollbrecht, 2012 WI App 90 (recommended for publication); case activity

§ 974.06 Motion – Laches Inapplicable 

¶17 n. 14:

While we acknowledge the State’s argument that Vollbrecht’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion is barred by laches and its request that we certify the issue to the supreme court, we decline the State’s invitation.  The State concedes that the supreme court has previously held that laches does not apply under § 974.06. 

State v. Kami L. Jennings, 2011AP2206-CR, District 2, 6/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence, introduced by the State, as to the defendant’s belief in reincarnation was inadmissible:

¶15      While the parties did not brief the issue, we hold that Jennings’ testimony should have been excluded as inadmissible character evidence under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(1).  See State v.

State v. James E. Emerson, 2011AP1028-CR, District 3, 6/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Counsel – Substitute 

Given findings made by the lower court after an evidentiary hearing, the court of appeals upholds denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw: counsel was prepared for trial; “(t)his was a dilatory tactic by the defendant,” on the eve of trial after the charge had been pending for some time;

State v. Eric Dominique Lesueur, 2011AP1550-CR, District 3, 6/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

By not asserting a discovery violation, for the State’s failure to provide a CD of a witness interview, trial counsel waived any potential issue, and review is limited to counsel’s effectiveness, ¶5. Lesueur can’t meet his burden of IAC-prejudice:

¶8        Lesueur did not establish Strickland prejudice.  

on review of published decision; for Novy: Bridget E. Boyle; case activity

Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation / Sleeping Juror 

Issues (Composed by On Point) caution: issue-identification necessarily speculative; check case activity link after briefs filed for verification of issues: 

1. a) Whether evidence ruled inadmissible during the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction for violating discovery rules is thereby rendered inadmissible at all stages,

State v. Andre L. Miller, 2012 WI App 68 (recommended for publication); for Miller: Jeffrey J. Guerard; case activity

Haseltine “Vouching” Rule 

The anti-vouching rule of State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984) (one witness may not comment on the credibility of another witness) isn’t applicable to a pre-trial interrogation during which the detective describes the defendant as lying.

State v. Christopher Walter Hurns, 2011AP857-CR, District 1, 5/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hurns: Rex Anderegg; case activity

Hurns wasn’t entitled to adduce, as an exception to the rape shield law, evidence of the complainant’s prior untruthful allegation of sexual assault; § 972.11(2)(b), as informed by 3-part test of State v. DeSantis, 155 Wis. 2d 774, 456 N.W.2d 600 (1990),

State v. Herbert Ambrose Darden, 2011AP883-CR, District 4, 5/3/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Darden: Angela Conrad Kachelski; case activity

Trial counsel correctly construed the holding of State v. Miller, 231 Wis. 2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999):

¶16      This is not the first time that we have been asked to determine whether or not Miller created a bright-line rule that evidence of flight is inadmissible if there is an independent explanation for the flight that cannot be explained to the jury.  

State v. Timothy D. Moseley, 2011AP892-CR, District 1, 5/1/12 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Moseley: Michael J. Steinle; case activity

Moseley’s contention, that he qualified his written consent to search with an oral limitation, was rejected by the trial court as a matter of credibility; that finding of fact is now affirmed:

¶18      The trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses.