On Point blog, page 39 of 69
Counsel: Request for Substitute – Effective Assistance (Disclosure of Communications, et al.); Double Jeopardy: Bail Jumping
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,
State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, No. 2009AP1351-CR, review granted 1/11/11
decision below: unpublished; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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,
Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object; Comment on Another Witness’s Truthfulness – Failure to Object;Ineffective Assistance – Prejudice
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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Black: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Black BiC; State Resp.; Reply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,
Pre-“Daubert” Expert-Opinion Caselaw
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.
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply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,