On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision
For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: A surveillance tape that became unplayable was “destroyed” within the meaning of § 910.04(1), and its contents could be testified to by pre-destruction viewers:

¶68 We are satisfied that where a tape is damaged and unplayable, the proponent of the evidence makes reasonable efforts to restore the tape to playability,

State v. Edward Bannister, 2007 WI 86, 302 Wis. 2d 158, 734 N.W.2d 892, reversing 2006 WI App 136

Issue/Holding: Bannister’s confession to giving morphine to someone who died from an overdose of the substance was sufficiently corroborated to support his his conviction:

¶ 22 We first address whether the State satisfied the corroboration rule during the course of Bannister’s trial. The corroboration rule is a common-law standard.

State v. Ahern Ramel, 2007 WI App 271
For Ramel: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The court may take judicial notice of public records, including material found in briefs available on-line, ¶24 n. 9.

State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; companion case: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2007 WI App 256; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger

Issue/Holding:

¶9        In State v. Kuntz,

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. Charles E. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175
For Dukes: Robert N. Meyeroff

Issue/Holding:

¶29 Here, Detective Carter testified that he observed the building at 450 North 33rd Street, saw people coming, staying for a few minutes and leaving, and explained that such traffic was consistent with operating a drug house. He admitted, however, that he was unable to see which unit the people who appeared to be purchasing drugs entered.

State v. Steven P. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5, affirming unpublished opinion
For Muckerheide: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: On a trial of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, § 940.09(1)(b), where the defense was that the death would have occurred anyway because the deceased grabbed the wheel just prior to the accident, evidence that the deceased “had, on prior occasions, gestured as if to grab the steering wheel of his father’s vehicle and,

State v. Keith A. Davis, 2008 WI 71, on Certification
For Davis: Chris A. Gramstrup

Issue/Holding1: Admissibility of a statement made in connection with a voice stress analysis (or other form of “honesty test”) turns on whether the statement is “totally discrete” from the testing procedure as gauged by the following factors:

¶23      Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Davis’s statement was not so closely associated with the voice stress analysis test so as to render it one event;

State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decisionFor Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski

Issue/Holding Belated discovery of the bailiff’s involvement in the charged offense as a possible witness did not, under the circumstances, cause sufficient prejudice to require mistrial:

¶57      In the present case, Wolfgram was unaware of his involvement in the case until the morning of trial. The jury was unaware of his involvement until the direct examination of the store clerk,

State v. Thomas C. Burton, 2007 WI App 237
For Burton: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Testimony by a “gang expert” as to the gang-affiliation of certain witnesses, in an effort to explain their motive to testify as they did, was irrelevant in the absence of any evidence that the defendant was himself a gang member:

¶14   Burton’s central argument on appeal is that Warmington’s testimony was squarely barred by State v.