On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Ronell E. Harris, 2008 WI 15, affirming unpublished decisionFor Harris: Ralph J. Sczygelskis

Issue/Holding: A document, identified to the jury as “recognizance of bond in a criminal case … by the defendant,” found in the same room as a controlled substance and meant to show his connection to the drug, was inadmissible:

¶82      Criminal History Generally Inadmissible. Ordinarily evidence of a defendant’s criminal history is not admissible because when such evidence is admitted,

State v. Timothy J. Normington, 2008 WI App 8, PFR filed 12/21/07
For Normington: Stephen J. Eisenberg

Issue: Whether images downloaded from the defendant’s computer, depicting objects inserted into women’s vaginas and into men’s and women’s anuses, were admissible on a charge of sexual assault of a mentally deficient victim involving an object inserted in his anus.

Holding:

¶19      We conclude the circuit court correctly decided that the greater latitude rule was available in cases where the other acts evidence is pornography,

State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175
For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether “death scene” analysis from an FBI agent was admissible to establish cause of simultaneous death of two elderly individuals found dead in their home.

Holding:

¶25      The general field of crime scene analysis has been recognized as being a body of specialized knowledge. United State v.

State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously admitted an attorney’s expert opinion testimony that LaCount had engaged in a securities transaction.

Holding:

¶19 As noted previously, appellate courts use the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard when reviewing a circuit court’s decision to admit expert testimony.

State v. Bryan James Krueger, 2008 WI App 162
For Krueger: Bradley J. Lochowicz

Issue/Holding:

¶15      Here, Mason was asked whether she had formed an opinion as to whether or not S.B. “was the product of any suggestibility or any coaching.” … Signs of coaching or suggestion could fall into the realm of knowledge that is outside that of a lay-person jury. [10]

¶16      However,

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002)
For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Presentation of expert testimony to establish, under a theory of newly discovered evidence,

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002)
For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Edmunds was convicted over a decade ago of causing the death of a baby in her charge;

State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2008 WI App 182
For Kletzien: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding:

¶8        A person convicted of a crime has a due process right to postconviction discovery if “the desired evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence.” State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258, ¶32, 268 Wis.  2d 468, 673 N.W.2d 369. Whether to grant a motion requesting postconviction discovery is committed to the trial court’s discretion.

State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31

For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger

Issue/Holding: Jury instructions on the elements of duty and intent under § 946.12(3) created mandatory conclusive presumptions:

¶10      Schultz contends that the following sentences in the jury instruction given by the trial court operated as mandatory conclusive presumptions on the issues of intent and duty: “The use of a state resource to promote a candidate in a political campaign or to raise money for a candidate provides to that candidate a dishonest advantage” (establishing the intent element);

State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶54      We agree with the State’s position that Price’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. In talking to Officer Langendorf, Price was describing a startling event——his encounter with Mayo, during which he claimed that he was robbed and battered.