On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue:: Whether an expert witness’s testimony should have been struck retrospectively when it became known, after the proceeding had concluded, that he had lied about his credentials and background.

Holding:

¶33. We cannot conclude that the circuit court’s refusal to strike Thomalla’s testimony was improper.

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed
For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding:

¶31. The privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed by art. I, § 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution and by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998). The use of a defendant’s silence for impeachment purposes has been long decided.

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the prosecutor properly cross-examined an alibi witness as to what the defendant had told him about his prior offense.

Holding:

¶21. Further, even if the 1992 conviction could have been properly admitted, using this evidence on cross-examination was improper. Other acts evidence is admitted for a specific purpose.

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

Issue1: Whether testimony by a state’s expert amounted to “Jensen” testimony, i.e., expert opinion that the sexual assault complainant’s behavior was consistent with that of sexual assault victims in general.

Holding:

¶21.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.

Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.”

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the alleged victim’s entire testimony at prior proceedings was properly admitted into evidence, under prior consistent statement or rule of completeness rationales.

Holding:

¶25. The trial court admitted the entire prior testimony under two theories: (1) the testimony constituted prior consistent statements under Wis. Stat.

State v. Daniel Williams, 2001 WI App 155
For Williams: Adrienne M. Moore, SPD, Racine Trial

Issue: Whether the grant of a petition for supervised release (§ 980.08) can be vacated on the basis of a periodic re-examination report (§ 980.07) which is a mere assessment of the same information utilized during the supervised release proceeding.

Holding: A motion for relief from judgment, § 980.07,

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, PFR filed
For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a witness should have been permitted to demonstrate with a doll the force used to cause injuries to the child victim.

Holding: The fact that the experts couldn’t agree on the exact cause of the injuries goes to weight, not admissibility, of the demonstration.

State v. Aaron Evans, 2000 WI App 178, 238 Wis.2d 411, 617 N.W.2d 220

For Evans: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in preventing a DNA expert from sitting at counsel table.

Holding: “|10 We are satisfied that, on this record, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Evans’s request that Friedman be exempted from the sequestration order.

State v. Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez, 2000 WI App 122, 237 Wis.2d 332, 613 N.W.2d 918
For Santana-Lopez: Rex Anderegg

Issue: Whether a sexual assault defendant’s pretrial offer to take a DNA test is relevant as consciousness of innocence.

Holding: “(A)n offer to undergo DNA analysis [is] relevant to the state of mind of the person making the offer — so long as the person making the offer believes that the test or analysis is possible,