On Point blog, page 41 of 68
In Camera Inspection, Shiffra/Green Material
State v. Donovan L. Lewis, 2009AP2531-CR, District 4, 8/26/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Lewis: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Defense access to a complainant’s privileged counseling records requires first convincing the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection to see if the records contain information material to innocence. And that requires showing a reasonable likelihood the records contain non-cumulative material information.
Recorded Confessions; Sentence Credit – Predisposition Secure Detention
State v. Dionicia M., 2010 WI App 134; for Dionicia M.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD Madison Appellate
Recorded Confessions
The juvenile was in custody when she was directed to the locked back seat of a patrol car so that she could be transported back to school after being reported truant; and, because it was feasible under the circumstances to record her ensuing statement, failure to do so rendered it inadmissible.
Evidence – Daubert; Discovery – Witness Notes; Briefs – Argumentation and SCRs; Closing Argument – Failure to Object; Ineffective Assistance – Failure to Investigate; Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Christopher D. Jones, 2010 WI App 133; for Jones: Amelia L. Bizzaro; for Amicus, Innocence Network: Jerome F. Buting; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Amicus Br.
Evidence – Daubert – Bullet Traced to Particular Gun
The court rejects “a blanket rule barring as a matter of course all testimony purporting to tie cartridge cases and bullets to a particular gun”:
¶22 Unlike in the federal system,
Evidence – Recording – Best Evidence Rule
State v. John D. Harris, 2009AP3140-CR, District 1, 8/17/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harris: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Testimony of an investigator relating the contents of a recording wasn’t inadmissible under the best evidence rule, § 910.02.
¶11 Although the best evidence rule generally requires an original recording to be played in court in order to prove the content of the recording,
Plain Error
State v. Erik B. Hudson, 2010AP000780-CR, District 3, 8/10/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hudson: George S.Pappas, Jr.; BiC; Resp.
While “better practice” would have been to strike and give a curative instruction following a witness’s non-responsive testimony, the trial court’s failure to do so wasn’t plain error.
State v. Chad W. Voeller, No. 2009AP001596-CR, District II, 7/28/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Voeller: Steven G. Richards; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Counsel – Sanction – Appendix
Contrary to the State’s certification, the appendix does not include the trial court’s findings or opinion. The transcript of the oral findings and opinion should have been included in the appendix.
Evidence / IAC: Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA; Instruction: Recording Policy Interrogation; Impeachment: Prior Convictions
State v. Tarence A. Banks, 2010 WI App 107; for Banks: Scott D. Obernberger; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA – Ineffective Assistance
Prosecutorial use of Banks’ refusal, after arrest, to provide a warrantless DNA sample penalized him for exercising a constitutional right. Because no contemporaneous objection was made, the issue is raised as ineffective assistance of counsel,
State v. Daniel Perry Oswald, No. 2009AP2455-CR, District I, 7/20/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oswald: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Consciousness of Guilt
Testimony from the Oswald’s parole agent, that Oswald missed an appointment shortly after the incident in question and that he seemed nervous when they later met, was relevant as “consciousness of guilt.” Admissibility wasn’t substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice,
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2); Comment on Truthfulness; Self-Incrimination – Waiver – Examination by Expert
State v. Corey Kleser, 2010 WI 88, affirming in part, reversing in part, 2009 WI App 43; for Kleser: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2) – Generally
¶69 Nothing in § 970.032(2) places a limitation on the evidence at a reverse waiver hearing so long as the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence and is relevant to one or more of the three elements set out in the subsection.
State v. Miguel Marinez, No. 2009AP567-CR, Wis SCt rev grant 6/29/10
decision below (unpublished); for Marinez: Ralph Sczygelski
Issues (as provided by the court):
Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion by admitting other acts evidence of the minor child’s videotaped statement without excerption of the hand-burning references?
Did the court of appeals err by applying the de novo standard of review to the circuit court’s decision admitting the minor child’s videotaped statement without excerption of the hand-burning references?