On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09
For Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel

Issue/Holding: Unpreserved challenge to sexual assault nurse examiner’s testimony (that abrasions were consistent with forcible intercourse and that no complainant had ever provided her with an inaccurate history) didn’t rise to plain error:

¶12      As the circuit court noted, Stephan did not offer an opinion about the cause of Keri’s abrasion,

State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78
For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly

Issue/Holding: Foundational requirement of probative value applies to computer-generated animation used as demonstrative exhibit to recreate crime scene:

¶17      Turning to probative value, we examine the State’s failure to lay a foundation for the admission of the animation.

State v. Pablo G. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120
For Quiroz: Glen B. Kulkoski

Issue/Holding:

¶21      Quiroz claims that under Miller, 231 Wis. 2d at 574, there is an automatic exception to the trial court’s discretionary ability to admit flight evidence whenever a defendant has an independent reason for flight that, if admitted, would unduly prejudice the defendant. Relying on his interpretation of Miller,

State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78
For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly

Issue/Holding:

¶11      The State submits that the computer-generated animation was intended as a demonstrative exhibit. The decision to admit or exclude demonstrative evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion. [6] State v.

State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42
For Warbelton: Paul G. Lazotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: On a trial for stalking, § 940.32, where one of the elements is prior conviction for “violent crime,” the defendant may blunt prejudicial impact of proof of the prior by stipulating to the existence of the conviction for a violent crime (thus precluding proof of its details);

State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson
For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly

Issue/Holding: Lay witness, who testified to computer-generated animation that attempted to recreate the alleged crime through the eyes of certain witnesses, lacked personal knowledge to undertake this effort:

¶16      As a lay witness,

State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding:

¶35      The first three alleged instances of misconduct are similar. In each instance, the prosecutor sought to demonstrate the possible unreliability of one witness’s recollection by using seemingly inconsistent recollections of another witness. For example, in one instance the prosecutor asked: “So if all other witnesses said that at 11:00 your mom was already home … that would be wrong?” We see no Haseltine problem with these three instances because the prosecutor was not asking a witness to opine as to whether another witness was telling the truth.¶36      The fourth alleged instance does appear to have involved a Haseltineviolation.

State v. Jason L. McClaren, 2009 WI 60, reversing 2008 WI App 118
For McClaren: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding:

¶21      It is well established that a defendant seeking to support a self-defense claim may attempt to “prov[e] prior specific instances of violence within [the defendant’s] knowledge at the time of the incident.”  State v. Wenger, 225 Wis.

State v. Ronnie Lee Winters, 2009 WI App 48, PFR filed 4/8/09
For Winters: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant validly waived his right to testify but then, after the state had rested and released its rebuttal witnesses, sought to retract the waiver, his failure to make an offer of proof as to the substance of his proposed testimony, either at trial or on postconviction motion,

State v. Jason L. McClaren, 2009 WI 60, reversing 2008 WI App 118
For McClaren: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding: A trial court has inherent and statutory authority (§ 906.11) to order that a defendant provide a pretrial summary of the specific “McMorris” evidence (violent acts of the alleged victim the defendant knew about, as relevant to self-defense) he or she wants to introduce at trial:

¶26      Given the limited nature of the evidence covered in this order——that is,