On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Frank M. Ruszkiewicz, 2000 WI App 125, 237 Wis. 2d 441, 613 N.W.2d 893
For Ruszkiewicz: Mark S. Rosen

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order production of the victim’s police and medical records, sought on the theory that they might show a condition that would cause her to bruise easily and, therefore, refute the element of force as demonstrated by her bruises.

State v. Gabriel DeRango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, affirming State v. Derango, 229 Wis. 2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27
For Derango: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether the trial court properly admitted, as misconduct evidence relevant to motive and intent on child enticement-related charges, depictions of sex acts by young females on videotapes found in the defendant’s home.

State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro

Issue: Whether a prior act involving drunken resisting arrest was properly admitted into evidence.

Holding: The prior act was admitted on the permissible purposes of showing intent and absence of mistake; had probative value due to strong similarities to the current offense; and, given high probative value along with cautionary instruction,

State v. Luther Wade Cofield, 2000 WI App 196, 238 Wis. 2d 467, 618 N.W.2d 214
For Cofield: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, on a charge of sexual assault where the defense was consent, evidence of prior sexual assaults were properly admissible.

Holding:

¶11 In reviewing the list set forth in WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2), we reject each of the proper ‘other purposes’

State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, reversing State v. Davidson, 222 Wis. 2d 233, 589 N.W.2d 38
For Davidson: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead

Issue: Whether, on a charge of sexually assaulting a 13-year old niece while on a camping trip, evidence of the defendant’s conviction ten years previous for sexually assaulting a 6-year old girl in a church basement was admissible.

State v. Edward A. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629, on certification, habeas denied, Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F. 3d 807 (7th Cir. 2003)
For Hammer: Rex Anderegg

Issue: Whether, in a trial for sexual assault of several adolescent males while staying at defendant’s parents’ home, evidence that defendant fondled an adult male, 5-7 years earlier while a guest at his home in Ohio,

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether a defense witness was properly impeached with evidence that he was serving life in prison with no prospect for parole.

Holding: The witness’s attempt to admit the crimes and exonerate the defendant would have misled the jury absent revelation of his functional immunity stemming from his parole status: “where no practical,

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2000 WI App 5, 232 Wis.2d 138, 606 N.W.2d 196
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the state sufficiently showed that the child understood that false statements were punishable so as to justify admissibility of her videotaped interview under § 908.08(3).

Holding: The admissibility statute, § 908.08(3), was satisfied, even though compliance wasn’t express.

Defendant argues that the state failed to establish a threshold requirement imposed for admissibility of a videotaped statement by a child under § 908.08(3),

State v. Edward A. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629, on certification, habeas denied, Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2003)
For Hammer: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: The rape shield statute will be overcome if the five-part test of State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 656, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990) is met.

(See also Appeals, Waiver; and Evidence, Objection)
State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Benoit: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP.
Holding: “(A) defendant who makes a motion in limine preserves the right to appeal the issue raised by the motion without renewing the motion at trial,” but only to “the extent that the issue was raised during the motion in limine hearing.”