On Point: 15. Evidence

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).

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 in admitting evidence in this 1st degree homicide trial of a prior sexual assault that resulted in Anderson being sent to prison, as evidence of his motive and intent to kill the deceased so she couldn’t testify against him.

Holding: The prior acts evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.

State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thoms: Steven L. Miller

Holding: On a charge that Thoms sexually assaulted his sister, the trial court allowed the state to introduce evidence that, 14 years before, he had allegedly sexually assaulted both a stranger and his niece, as evidence of “common plan or scheme to obtain sexual gratification by force.”

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Edmunds: Dean A. Strang

Holding: In her opening statement, Edmunds told the jury that no one would testify that she did “an unloving act to a child.” This assertion allowed the state to show that she had struck a child over the head with a hard cover book.

In re Petition for Subpoena of Documents: Ramiro Estrada v. State, 228 Wis.2d 459, 596 N.W.2d 496 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Estrada: Keith A. Steckbauer

Holding: An alleged sexual assault perpetrator’s wife videotaped an interview with the complainant, after an attorney told them it would be helpful to know more about the allegations. The court of appeals upholds a discovery order to turn the video over to the prosecution,