On Point: 15. Evidence

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.

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

Issue/Holding: Although a mere allegation is insufficient, the burden for establishing a prima facie case of the attorney-client crime-fraud exception is low — reasonable cause (i.e., more than suspicion but less than preponderance-of-evidence) to believe that the attorney’s services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme. ¶50, quoting United States v. Chen,

In Re: A Witness Before the Special Grand Jury, 288 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)

Issue/Holding: Privilege between government lawyer and client — state agency — does not extend to criminal proceedings such as grand jury investigation.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold

Issue/Holding: The court modifies the threshold showing required for an in camerainspection, in favor of “a slightly higher standard,” namely a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the records will be necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence.”¶32.

¶34. Based on the above considerations,

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

Holding: A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.