On Point blog, page 39 of 68
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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Moore: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Moore BiC; State Resp.; Reply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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Angela Conrad Kachelski; Anderson BiC; State Resp.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,
Hearsay – Against-Interest Statement
State v. Devon A. Sheriff, 2009AP3095-CR, District 1, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sheriff: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Sheriff BiC; State Resp.
Sheriff, convicted at jury trial of participating in drug sale, unsuccessfully appeals trial judge’s refusal to admit into evidence codefendant’s statements.
¶12 We conclude that the statements that Sheriff sought to admit were properly excluded because they were irrelevant.
Confrontation: Forfeiture Doctrine – Witness Unavailability; Authentication – Telephone Recording; Appellate Jurisdiction
State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line)
The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the witness from testifying.
¶39 Therefore,
Evidence – Disorderly Conduct – Relevance
State v. Salvador Cruz, 2010AP911-CR, District 2, 10/13/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cruz: Matthew S. Pinix; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence of the effect of the defendant’s (alleged disorderly) conduct was relevant, without a showing of “proximity” to that conduct:
¶13 A.S. instructs that “[i]n addition to considering the potential effects of a defendant’s conduct in disorderly conduct cases … prior cases also indicate that the actual effects of a defendant’s conduct are probative.” Id.
Fleeing, § 346.04(3); Evidence – Character Trait of Victim
State v. Daniel H. Hanson, 2010 WI App 146 (recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 4; for Hanson: Chad A. Lanning; case activity
Fleeing, § 346.04(3)
Can you criminally “flee” the police, if what you’re actually doing is driving to the nearest police station to escape what you believe to be a beating at the hands of the officer you’re fleeing?