On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Jimmie Lee Higgins, 2010AP861-CR, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Higgins: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Higgins BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Any error with respect to exclusion of the victim’s pretrial statement to the police in one instance, and admissibility of her statements to a nurse, would be harmless.

State v. Jevell Williams, 2010AP1266-CR, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Williams: Bradley J. Wochowicz; case activity; Williams BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Right to Present Defense – Prosecutorial Intimidation of Witness

The prosecutor didn’t violate Williams’s right to present a defense by raising the possibility that his alibi witness had potentially violated a no-contact order by contacting a State’s witness on Williams’s behalf.

Join Mr. Badger in Welcoming Daubert to the Badger State

2011 Wis Act 2 (Senate Bill 1, Special Session Jan. 2011) brings Wisconsin into line with FRE 702 (“Daubert” rule). The Act was signed into law 1/27, but won’t take effect until published (which will be no later than 2/10). A potential sea change in expert witness admissibility is in the offing; see, e.g., State v.

State v. Demetrius M. Boyd, 2011 WI App 25; for Boyd: Rebecca Robin Lawnicki; case activity; Boyd BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Request for New Counsel

An indigent defendant doesn’t have the right to counsel of choice, but does have the right to counsel with whom he or she can communicate effectively. When an indigent defendant requests change of counsel,

decision below: unpublished; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether admission into evidence of electronic monitoring daily summary reports requires expert testimony to lay a foundation as to accuracy and reliability.

Whether the daily summary reports fall outside the definition of hearsay because they don’t represent assertions made by a person.

Kandutsch, while under electronic monitoring,

State v. Charles R. Black, 2009AP2036-CR, District 4, 1/13/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Black: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Black BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object

An expert may testify that a complainant’s behavior is consistent with a sexual assault victim’s,

Caselaw prior to amendments to §§ 907.01-.03 may be found: here. These sections were amended by 2011 Wis Act 2 (eff. date 2/1/11), as follows:

907.01 Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. (intro.) If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally all of the following:

(1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful.

State v. Daniel W. Kohel, 2010AP1057-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Prosecutorial delay, measuring at least 2 years and perhaps longer, in disclosing potentially exculpatory evidence violated Kohel’s right to speedy trial and therefore supports dismissal with prejudice of the pending charge.

State v. Craig A. Erickson, 2010AP1763-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Erickson: Kirk B. Obear; case activity; Erickson BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Laboratory assistant, acting under direction of pathologist and following laboratory procedures, is qualified under § 343.305(5)(b) to draw blood. State v. Penzkofer, 184 Wis.

State v. Jonathan A. Meenen, 2009AP3107-CR, District 3, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Meenen: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Meneen BiC; State Resp.; Reply

On a charge of 1st-degree sexual assault of a (5-year-old) child, evidence of Meneen’s prior juvenile adjudication for sexual contact with an 8-year-old was admissible:

• Acceptable purpose.