On Point blog, page 64 of 68
Impeachment — Witness’s Parole Eligibility Date
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,
Videotaped Interview, § 908.08(3) — Satisfying Requirement Child Understands “False Statements Are Punishable”
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),
Rape-Shield, § 972.11 – Generally
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.
motion in limine, preservation of issue.
(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.”
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — “Reverse” Misconduct — 3rd-party similar crime as exoneration of defendant
State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 227 Wis.2d 285, 595 N.W.2d 661 (1999), on reconsideration, State v. Scheidell, 230 Wis.2d 189, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999), reversing State v. Scheidell, 220 Wis.2d 753, 584 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Scheidell: Mitchell E. Cooper, SPD, Madison.
Holding: Scheidell sought to introduce evidence that, while he was in jail awaiting trial on this sexual assault-related case,
Expert Testimony – Mental Disorder – Usefulness to Fact-Finder
State v. John J. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Watson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Holding: Admissibility of a psychologist’s (preliminary hearing, 980 proceeding) testimony that Watson’s crime was sexually motivated is upheld:
¶ 52. … While the average lay person may be able to draw reasonable inferences from facts, an expert ought to be able to show how a person’s offense relates to the person’s purported mental disorder,
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop – Basis – Privileged Information – Public Safety Exception to Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege
State v. Curtis M. Agacki, 226 Wis.2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Agacki: John M. Carroll.
Issue: “(W)hether whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist’s account of a patient’s disclosure, which provided the basis for the officer’s probable cause to search the patient.”
Holding: Because the statements involved the patient’s threat of imminent harm to another,
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Newly Discovered Evidence – Recantation
State v. Dennis J. Kivioja, 225 Wis.2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), on certification
For Kivioja: Mark G. Sukowaty.
Issue/Holding: Kivioja pleaded guilty after his codefendant, Stehle, implicated him in a string of burglaries. Following his own sentencing and prior to Kivioja’s, Stehle recanted and Kivioja moved to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the court of appeals certified the appeal,
§ 901.03, Objection/Offer of Proof – sufficiency – cite to applicable caselaw
State v. David C. Tutlewski, 231 Wis.2d 379, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tutlewski: Dianne M. Erickson
Issue: Whether citation to relevant authority preserved an evidentiary objection.
Holding: The issue was preserved by contemporaneous objection that included citation to relevant caselaw:
¶10 At trial and before Carver was permitted to testify, Tutlewski renewed his objection to the State’s calling of Carver.
Offer of Proof — Involuntary Intoxication — Need to Distinguish Right from Wrong
State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Holding: Gardner attempted to raise an involuntary intoxication defense, § 939.42(1), based on the effects of prescription medication. The trial court heard his offer of proof and barred his expert (psychiatrist) from testifying. Unlike voluntary intoxication, involuntary intoxication doesn’t negate intent; it instead renders the actor incapable of distinguishing right from wrong,