On Point blog, page 40 of 68
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Unlawful Use of Phone – Sufficiency of Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; Citation of Unpublished Caselaw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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schmidt: Andrew John Laufers; Schmidt BiC; State Resp.; Reply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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sheriff: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Sheriff BiC; State Resp.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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cruz: Matthew S. Pinix; BiC; Resp.; Reply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?
Evidence – Moving Radar
Village of Marathon City v. Jenny L. Nowak, 2010AP462, District 3, 9/30/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp. Br.
¶11 The five-factor Hanson/Kramer test is used to determine the accuracy of moving radar.[4] See Washington Cnty. v. Luedtke, 135 Wis. 2d 131, 133 n.2, 399 N.W.2d 906 (1987). “If there is compliance with the Hanson/Kramer criteria,
State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp, 09AP806, Wis SCT rev granted 9/13/10
decision below: 2010 WI App 42; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell
Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):
Does the confrontation clause bar admission of testimonial dying declarations against a defendant in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 and State v. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, 281 Wis. 2d 554, 697 N.W.2d 811?
Does a defendant’s right to due process of law restrict the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements?
Expert Witness Qualifications; Admissibility – Field Sobriety Tests; WI (Drugs) – Sufficiency of Evidence
City of Mequon v. James E. Haynor, 2010AP466-FT, District 2, 9/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haynor: Peter L. Ramirez; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Expert Witness Qualifications – Lab Chemist: Physiological Effects of Drugs
The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in qualifying as an expert, the supervisor of forensic toxicology at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene on the matter of how certain drugs interact and impair judgment,
Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel; Joinder/Severance; Evidence – Autopsy Photos
State v. Adamm D.J. Linton, 2010 WI App 129; for Linton: Joseph E. Redding; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel
Initial custodial questioning terminated when Linton invoked his right to silence. During subsequent re-interrogation, Linton said, “when I asked for a lawyer earlier, why wasn’t he appointed to me?” The detective indicated that if Linton was asking for a lawyer then the police would “just stop talking to”