On Point: 15. Evidence

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.

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:

The State provides no authority to support the trial court’s imposition of a requirement that, as a matter of law, expert testimony is necessary to establish a foundation for video images, and we are aware of none. Wisconsin case law does not impose such a requirement for the admission of still photographs.

State v. Gary Curtis, 218 Wis. 2d 550, 582 N.W.2d 409 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Curtis: Arthur B. Nathan

Issue/Holding:

Next, Curtis claims that the tapes admitted into evidence at trial were not properly authenticated. At trial, Poivey, a party to the conversations on the tapes, testified that the voices on the tapes were his and Curtis’. This type of voice identification is a valid avenue of authentication.

State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391, 395, 546 N.W.2d 570 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Munoz: Craig M. Kuhary

Issue/Holding:

Here, as in Lederer, the defense offered nothing more than “the mere possibility” that the records “might produce some evidence helpful to the defense.” Lederer, however, was decided before Shiffra. The broad language of Shiffra-“that the sought-after evidence is relevant and may be helpful to the defense,”