On Point: 15. Evidence

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief on review of Wis. COA No. 2008AP1533-CR; prior history: 2001AP713-CR, 1995AP1856-CR

Habeas – Exculpatory Evidence – Available to Defendant

Jardine argues that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence, namely that post-conviction testing of the gun he admittedly possessed but denied using to club the victim didn’t reveal the presence of the victim’s DNA.

State v. Stuart J. Gasper, 2010AP1973-CR, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gasper: Mark A. Schoenfeldt; case activity

On a trial for hit-and-run and OWI, evidence that just before the charged events, the defendant’s car struck another car, was not “other acts” evidence within § 904.04(2) but, rather, was admissible to show “context”:

¶13      At the postconviction motion hearing,

State v. William M. Hart, 2011AP582, District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hart: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Although a (DOT-prepared) blood alcohol chart is admissible without expert testimony, State v. Hinz, 121 Wis. 2d 282, 284–85, 360 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1984), nonethless, “the proponent must lay the proper foundation for the evidence, and the burden does not shift to the opponent unless the proponent does so,” 

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief in Wis COA No. 2008AP398-CR

Habeas – Duty to Preserve Apparent Exculpatory Evidence 

Pretrial destruction of car driven by McCarthy didn’t violate State’s duty to preserve exculpatory evidence, the court rejecting McCarthy’s argument that the destruction unconstitutionally impaired his affirmative defense of brake failure (against charge of causing great bodily harm by operating vehicle while under the influence,

State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Computer-Generated Report (Electronic Monitoring Device) – Foundation

Expert testimony isn’t necessary to lay a foundation for admissibility for a computer-generated EMD report:

¶28  Closing down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement of expert testimony is an extraordinary one.  

State v. Albert M. Virsnieks, 2010AP1967, District 2 / 1, 6/21/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity

Virsnieks’ plea-based conviction for burglary supported  ch. 980 commitment.

¶35      A Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petition must allege, among other things, that a “person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.”[5] Wis. Stat. § 980.02(2)(a)1.  A “[s]exually violent offense” is defined,

State v. Crystal P. Keith, 2010AP1667-CR, District 1, 5/24/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Keith: John A. Pray; case activity

On Keith’s conviction for reckless homicide in beating death of foster son, statements of her biological daughter (such as, “Why does mama have to go to jail for what my daddy did”) didn’t satisfy the test for newly discovered evidence. Keith’s confession to the police “was so detailed”

State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp, 2011 WI 27, affirming 2010 WI App 42; for Beauchamp: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Confrontation – Dying Declaration, § 908.045(3)

¶34  We therefore, like every state court that has considered the dying declaration exception since Crawford, take a position consistent with the language of Crawford and Giles and decline to hold that the constitutional right to confront witnesses is violated by the admission of statements under the dying declaration hearsay exception. 

State v. Alan Keith Burns, 2011 WI 22, affirming unpublished decision; for Burns: David R. Karpe; case activity

The court rejects Burns’s claim for a new trial in the interest of justice premised on three grounds: 1. Burns was unable to cross-examine the complainant on her implication that he took her virginity; 2. evidence of prior sexual assaults of the complainant by his father,

State v. Dennis J. Thornton, 2009AP3074-CR, District 2, 4/13/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Thornton: Angela C. Kachelski; case activity

Scienter is not an element of § 940.225(3). State v. Lederer, 99 Wis. 2d 430, 433, 299 N.W.2d 457 (Ct. App. 1980) (statute requires proof of victim’s nonconsent – in contradistinction, presumably, of defendant’s knowledge of lack of consent –