On Point blog, page 39 of 68
Speedy Trial – Belated Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply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.
Blood Test Admissibility – Lab Tech Qualifications, Blood Draw
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Erickson: Kirk B. Obear; case activity; Erickson BiC; State Resp.; Reply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.
Other-Acts Evidence
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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Meenen: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Meneen BiC; State Resp.; Reply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.
Confrontation – Generally – Forfeiture by Wrongdoing – Harmless Error; Other Acts Evidence: Pornography (& Intent to Kill); Consent to Search; Judicial Bias
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply
Confrontation – Generally
The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,
Evidence – Ongoing Conflict with Deceased, Hearsay – Residual Exception, 3rd-Party Guilt; Sufficiency of Evidence – Homicide
State v. Kevin M. Moore, 2009AP3167-CR, District 2, 12/15/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Moore: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Moore BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Frequenting “Gentleman’s Club” as Source of Friction with Deceased
Evidence that Moore spent much time and money at a local “gentleman’s club,” offered by the State to as support for an “ongoing conflict”
Miranda – Impeachment – Harmless Error
State v. Marlon M. Anderson, 2010AP742-CR, District 1/4, 12/9/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Angela Conrad Kachelski; Anderson BiC; State Resp.
A defendant’s statement made voluntarily but in violation of Miranda isn’t admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but is admissible if the defendant testifies and the statement is inconsistent with his testimony. The question raised here relates to how such inconsistency is measured: whether outright contradictions are necessary,
Newly Discovered Evidence: Test – SVP Commitment – Revised Actuarial; Completeness Doctrine, § 901.07; Interest of Justice Review
State v. Richard D. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166 (recommended for publication); for Sugden: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; Sugden BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Newly Discovered Evidence – Test – Generally
¶14 In order to be entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Sugden must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the evidence is,
Multiplicity: § 948.40(1) (4)(a) as Lesser of § 940.02(2)(a); Contributing to Delinquency with Death as Result; Instructions – First-Degree Reckless Homicide; Prosecutorial Misconduct – “Haseltine”
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2010 WI 130, affirming 2009 WI App 181; for Patterson: David R. Karpe; Patterson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Multiplicity – § 948.40(1) (4)(a) as Lesser Offense of § 940.02(2)(a)
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor with death as a result, § 948.40(1), (4)(a) is not a lesser offense of first-degree reckless homicide,
Exculpatory Evidence Preservation; Right to Inform Jury of Evidence Destruction
State v. Joshua Lashawn Munford, 2010 WI App 168 (recommended for publication); for Munford: Joseph L. Sommers; Munford BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Munford’s claim that police destruction of his van violated due process is rejected, because the van didn’t have apparent exculpatory value. His defense against the homicide charge was that someone else fired shots that went through the van and struck the victim who was on the street.
Unlawful Use of Phone – Sufficiency of Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; Citation of Unpublished Caselaw
State v. Kurt Daniel Schmidt, 2010AP1104-CR, District 3, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schmidt: Andrew John Laufers; Schmidt BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Unlawful Use of Phone – Sufficiency of Evidence
Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for violating § 947.012(1)(c). The second of two calls anonymously made by Schmidt in a matter of minutes to his wife during a pending divorce with custody in dispute,