On Point: 15. Evidence

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,

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,

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. 

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,

State v. Gordon R. Anderson, Jr., 230 Wis.2d 121, 600 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Anderson: Craig M. Kuhary

Issue: Whether the trial court erred, under the doctrine of completeness, in refusing to admit certain portions of Anderson’s statement to a detective.

Holding: The completeness doctrine trumps the hearsay rule, and the trial court erred in excluding one portion of the statement (though the error was harmless);

State v. Liliana Petrovic, 224 Wis.2d 477, 592 N.W.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Petrovic: Robert B. Rondini

Issue/Holding: The court holds admissible the following evidence: defendant’s “close” connection to someone (Fooden) with whom an agent “was familiar … based on drug investigations he had performed for the IRS.” “The State’s evidence indicating a connection between Petrovic and Fooden was relevant to the issue of drug delivery.

State v. Earl L. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Miller: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether evidence of the defendant’s flight from police three days after the crime was admissible.

Holding: “While not part of the original criminal episode, evidence of flight was admissible because it indicated Miller’s consciousness of guilt,” ¶22.

State v. Kurt J. Doerr, 229 Wis.2d 616, 599 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Doerr: John M. Carroll.

Issue/Holding: Doerr argues that evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test was irrelevant, because it occurred at the police station rather than the arrest scene. The argument is rejected: Though refusal evidence is relevant to show the defendant’s awareness that he or she was intoxicated,

State v. Andres DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999).
For DelReal: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Holding: At trial on shooting related charges, one detective testified that DelReal’s hands had been swabbed for gunshot residue (with unknown results), but the lead detective testified that he hadn’t. The trial court struck testimony about the swabbing, ruling it irrelevant. Turns out that DelReal was swabbed and,

State v. Rodney G. Zivcic, 229 Wis.2d 119, 598 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Zivcic: John J. Carter

Holding: A “deficient sample” printout from an Intoxilyzer 5000 test is held admissible – not as a test result, but as Zivcic’s failure to provide adequate breath samples (which equals a refusal).