On Point: 15. Evidence

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,”