On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below.
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue/Holding: Applying the test of State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 647-48, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990), the court finds evidence of prior sexual assaults necessary “to rebut the logical and weighty inference that the victim gained sexual knowledge because the defendant committed the acts charged,” 

Malvern Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis.2d 458, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998), on certification
For Sullivan: William A. Denny

Holding: A DOT training pamphlet, explaining physical and mental impairment as the level of alcohol concentration increases, is held admissible under the sec. 908.03(8) (public records and reports) exception to the hearsay rule. The court stresses that the pamphlet’s data “are factual and were made pursuant to the department’s duty to administer and enforce the laws….”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the defense engaged in attacks on the complainant’s character for truthfulness so as to open the door to opinion testimony that she was truthful.

Holding: § 906.08 supports rehabilitation of a witness “only in limited situations,”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the state was properly allowed to admit into evidence, under the rule of completeness, certain oral “challenged statements in their entirety, to show consistency on significant factual issues,”

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether an offer of proof must be in question-and-answer form.

Holding:

¶15 The court in Milenkovich did not say, and we do not say now, that every offer of proof should be accompanied by a question and answer format. There are cases in which the evidentiary problem posed is easily resolved by statements of counsel.

State v. Robert J. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214, 582 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Nichelson: Paul M. Moldenhauer

Issue/Holding: fn. 8:

The State’s right to question a defendant’s attorney when the defendant alleges that the attorney failed to properly inform him or her before entering a plea is established in State v. Van Camp, 213 Wis.2d 131, 145, 569 N.W.2d 577,

State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

A trial court sitting as fact-finder6 may derive inferences from the testimony and take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute,7 but it may not establish as an adjudicative fact that which is known to the judge as an individual.

State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Richard: Robert Henak

Holding: The trial court reversibly erred in refusing to allow an expert psychologist to testify that defendant “did not show any evidence of any diagnosable sexual disorder. … [and] that absent a diagnosable disorder, it is unlikely that such a person would molest a child.”

This evidence was relevant: “[Psychologist] Lodl’s testimony may well have assisted the jury in determining whether Richard,

State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998).
For Richard: Robert Henak.

Issue/Holding: Diagnosis of multiple personality disorder, to impeach witness: evidence of mental impairment does not, without more, affect witness’s credibility. Without evidence that this condition affected the witness’s recall ability, it is irrelevant.

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Sveum: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant sought admissibility of a statement by a non-testifying declarant on the basis that it was not offered for its truthfulness, but the statement would have probative value only if offered for truth of the matter asserted, it was inadmissible hearsay.