On Point: 25. Jury

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2013 WI 23, affirming 2012 WI App 10; case activity

Evidence excluded from state’s case-in-chief because of discovery violation is admissible as rebuttal evidence

The trial court excluded the state from presenting fingerprint evidence in its case-in-chief because the state failed to properly disclose the evidence under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(g). But after Novy testified, the court allowed the state to put the evidence in during its rebuttal case.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether the jury instructions on self defense as it pertained to second degree reckless homicide fairly and adequately explained the defense to the jury.

2. Whether trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence.

Petitions for review aren’t available on the court’s website, so issue-formulation is educated guesswork based on the decision of the court of appeals.

State v. Jacob Turner, 2013 WI App 23;  case activity

Addressing an unusual set of facts, the court of appeals holds Turner’s constitutional rights to an impartial jury and due process were not violated by the seating of a juror who had not been summoned for service and who did not disclose that to the court.

A summons for jury duty was sent to “John P.

State v. Daniel Ryan Curry, 2012AP515-CR, District 1, 12/27/12

Court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Newly discovered evidence

Defendant not entitled to new trial based on potentially exculpatory testimony of two witnesses, because the witnesses were known to him before trial. The two witnesses were the son and nephew of a defense witness named Rivera. Statements made by Curry and Rivera and contained in police reports,

State v. David J. Galarowicz, 2012AP933-CR, District 3, 12/11/12

court of appeals decision (1 judge; not eligible for publication); case activity

Galarowicz was not denied his right to a unanimous jury verdict on one count of disorderly conduct where the evidence showed an incident of disorderly conduct with the victim in the residence and additional conduct with the same victim in the residence after a twenty-minute pause. 

State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, District 1, 11/27/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/18/13; reversed, 2014 WI 6; case activity

Complaint – Adequate Notice (Child Sexual Assault) – Waived Objection 

Badzinski waived his objection to the complaint – counsel conceded, at a motion to dismiss because of vagueness,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point) 

1. Whether the non-waivable nature of the defendant’s right to personal presence at voir dire, citing, § 971.04(1)(c); State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999), extends to examination of a juror for possible dismissal following selection and swearing-in.

2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed two jurors,

State v. Curtis L. Jackson, 2011AP2698-CR, District 1, 10/10/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13, affirmed, 2014 WI 4 (1/22/14); case activity

Waiver (Lack of Objection), Generally – Jury Instructions

¶8        … To obtain relief based on a jury instruction to which no objection was made, Jackson must show that “considering the proceedings as a whole,

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

seventh circuit decision

Habeas – Jury Exposure to Extraneous Information 

Subsequent to trial, Hall discovered that a juror’s son was a fellow inmate of Hall who initially told the juror that Hall was likely innocent, but later indicated that he “and several co-inmates had changed their mind about Hall and thought him guilty.” The (Indiana) state court ruled that this extrinsic information wasn’t prejudicial: the burden to show actual prejudice from exposure to extraneous information is on the defendant and,