On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565

For Samuel: Robert A. Henak

Issue/Holding: Ҧ30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product of coercion, the police misconduct must be more than that set forth in Clappes.

State v. Glenn E. Davis, 2002 WI 75, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 210, 247 Wis. 2d 917, 634 N.W.2d 922
For Davis: James M. Shellow

Issue/Holding:

¶16. The rules on character evidence and expert testimony allow for the admissibility of Richard A.P. evidence. Under our rules of evidence, a defendant may introduce “pertinent trait[s]”

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds

Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant committed a burglary at the age of 13 was admissible as extrinsic evidence to impeach his testimonial denial, on cross-examination, of intent to steal.

Holding: § 906.08(2) expressly prohibits using extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to attack a witness’s credibility,

State v. Joseph F. Volk, 2002 WI App 274
For Volk: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison App

Issue: Whether, in a prosecution for battery against the defendant’s live-in girlfriend, evidence of the defendant’s domestic abuse of his former wife was admissible.

Holding: The evidence tended to refute the defense of lack of intent to harm:

¶22. Here, the prior acts testified to by Love were very similar to the events surrounding the charged offense and,

State v. Michael L. Veach, 2002 WI 110, reversing 2001 WI App 143
For Veach: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, on charges of sexually assaulting a 7-year old girl, evidence that the defendant had sexually assaulted his 9-year old daughter approximately 11 years earlier was properly admissible.

Holding:

• 1). The evidence was offered for an acceptable purpose,

State v. Brian D. Seefeldt, 2002 WI App 149, affirmed, 2003 WI 47
For Seefeldt: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶23. We are satisfied that the reference to the outstanding warrants is not classic “other acts” evidence invoking Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2) analysis. Rather, the existence of the warrants is “part of the panorama of evidence” that directly supports Seefeldt’s defense and sits at the heart of his right to present exculpatory evidence.

State v. Eugene P. Opalewski, 2002 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/02
For Opalewski: Lorinne J. Cunningham

Issue/Holding: On charges of first degree sexual assault of a child and incest, evidence of the defendant’s past sexual abuse of his two daughters and the children of a prior girlfriend was admissible under the three-step test of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis.

State v. Marc Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140
For Norfleet: Alan D. Eisenberg

Issue/Holding: Once the trial court reasonably determines that disclosure of an informant’s identity is required, there is no need to hold an in camera hearing, ¶¶13-14.

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: The attorney-client privilege shields statements from attorney to client, such as billing records only to the extent that disclosure would “reveal[] the substance of lawyer-client communications.” ¶40. The undisputed record here shows that the sought billing records “contain detailed descriptions of the nature of the legal services rendered to [the client]. Producing the attorney billing records would,

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: A former officer and director of a corporation is not entitled to waive the corporation’s attorney-client privilege, even with regard to information generated during the person’s corporate tenure. Under the “entity rule,” the privilege belongs solely to the corporation, and only the corporation may waive it. ¶¶33-35.