On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Troy D. Moore, 2002 WI App 245
For Moore: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Extrinsic evidence offered by the state solely to bolster a witness’s credibility, by showing that he had provided reliable information leading to the arrests of other drug dealers, violated § 906.08(2). ¶15. (Note: the court holds open the question of whether such evidence might be admissible under § 904.04(2).

State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 854
For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel

Issue: Whether the prosecution opened the door to otherwise privileged “Shiffra” evidence.

Holding:

¶51. Before trial, the circuit court found that there was nothing relevant in D.F.’s treatment records that was not also in Dr.

State v. Tito J. Long, 2002 WI App 114, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Long: Ann T. Bowe

Issue/Holding: Officer’s background, including “gang training” and investigations into numerous gang-related shootings, made him qualified to testify as to gang activities in city. ¶26.

State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38
For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶8. After reviewing these cases, we can discern some general rules: (1) an expert witness can offer opinion testimony only if it complies with Wis. Stat. § 907.02; (2) the testimony can include opinions regarding symptomatology common to child sexual assault victims; (3) the testimony can include a description of the symptoms exhibited by the victims;

State v. Gary L. Gordon, 2002 WI App 53, affirmed, 2003 WI 69
For Gordon: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether proof-of-service documents, introduced to show defendant’s knowledge of a domestic violence injunction, violated the hearsay rule.

Holding:

¶43. … However, these documents were not made under oath or attested to in any way; thus, they were not affidavits.

State v. Shelleen B. Joyner, 2002 WI App 250, PFR filed 10/24/02
For Joyner: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18. Shelleen Joyner argues that Trudy Joyner’s statement is against her penal interest, however, because Trudy Joyner admitted that she “knowingly helped a robber escape.” We disagree. “[W]hen ruling upon a narrative’s admissibility … a court must break it down and determine the separate admissibility of each ‘single declaration or remark.’”

State v. Zebelum Smith, 2002 WI App 118, PFR filed 5/9/02
For Smith: Erich C. Straub

Issue: Whether, as a foundational requirement for introducing a witness’s prior inconsistent statement, the witness must be given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement.

Holding: Although § 906.13(2)(a)1 suggests that the witness must first be given opportunity to explain or deny, it adds that the prior inconsistent statement is admissible if the witness hasn’t been excused from testifying:

¶13.

State ex rel. Willie C. Simpson v. Schwarz, 2002 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/11/02

Issue/Holding: Child-sexual-assault-victim’s hearsay statement in this revocation case satisfies test for admissibility under residual exception, State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis. 2d 226, 421 N.W.2d 77 (1988).

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Williams satisfied the unavailability requirement necessary to admit a declarant’s against-interest hearsay statement exculpating the defendant, § 908.045(4).

Holding: Unavailability is determined by § 908.04(1)(e), and requires a “good-faith effort” and due diligence” in attempting to secure the declarant’s presence, ¶62.

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue:/Holding: The exclusion of hearsay evidence proffered by the defense is tested under the “two-part framework” of State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, ¶51, or “whether the proffered evidence was ‘essential to’ the defense, and whether without the proffered evidence, the defendant had ‘no reasonable means of defending his case.’”