On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Keith: John A. Pray; case activity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State v. Alan Keith Burns, 2011 WI 22, affirming unpublished decision; for Burns: David R. Karpe; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Thornton: Angela C. Kachelski; case activity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 –

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Certificate of Appealability

We pause briefly to note the district court’s error in denying a certificate of appealability in this case. The statute provides that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,

State v. Bryan Peter Leather, 2010AP354-CR, District 1, 4/5/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Leather: Rex Anderegg; case activity

Leather argues he was entitled to call the prosecutor as a witness to testify about the complainant’s hearsay statements to her. The 6th amendment right to present a defense (confrontation and compulsory process) isn’t absolute and in particular doesn’t extend to irrelevant evidence. The offer of proof in support of admissibility shows that the complainant’s statements to the prosecutor weren’t inconsistent with her testimony,

Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11

7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay

Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation

The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding him from inquiring into the complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual misconduct.

State v. Anthony M. Smith, 2009AP2867-CR, District 1/4, 3/3/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Smith: Rodney Cubbie, Syovata K. Edari; case activity

Trial court’s limitations on cross-examination with respect to State witness’s “prior mental condition” or use of medications (prescribed for his Bipolar Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder) upheld as proper exercise of discretion. The witness was taking his medication at the time of the alleged offense,