On Point: 15. Evidence

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hurns: Rex Anderegg; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Darden: Angela Conrad Kachelski; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Moseley: Michael J. Steinle; case activity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.  

State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2011AP2864-CRAC, District 2, 4/18/12, WSC rev granted 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Johnson: Mark D.   Richards, Michael F. Hart, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt; case activity

Shiffra-Green Procedure – Privileged Records – Remedy Where Witness Declines Consent for in Camera Review 

Johnson, charged with sexual assault of his stepdaughter T.S.,

State v. Christopher J. Anderson, 2009AP3053-CR, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 2008AP504-CR

Anderson’s prior appeal established that “the trial court erred when it denied his request for an in camera review of [police] personnel files because he had both a constitutional and statutory right to any exculpatory or impeachment evidence in the files,”

State v. Britney M. Langlois, 2011AP166-CR, District 4/1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Langlois: Philip J. Brehm; case activity

The court  of appeals upholds a trial court finding that the prosecutor’s explanation for striking an African-American juror (recent conviction for disorderly conduct) was non-discriminatory:

¶33      After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the trial court properly applied the Batson test.  

State v. Daniel H. Hanson, 2012 WI 4, affirming 2010 WI App 146; for Hanson: Robert R. Henak, Chad Lanning; case activity

Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements: “Willful or Wanton Disregard” 

Fleeing does not require “an evil or malicious state of mind” when disregarding an officer’s signal:

¶22  In Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3), “willful” modifies “disregard.”  In that context,