On Point blog, page 24 of 29
Jury Instructions; Ineffective Assistance; Record on Appeal; Self-Defense
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2833-CR, District 1, 10/13/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Lesser-Included Instruction – Battery
Harris not entitled to instruction on simple battery as lesser included of substantial battery; the medical evidence established without contradiction that the victim suffered a fractured rib, therefore no reasonable jury could have acquitted him of the greater offense,
State v. Donovan M. Burris, 2009AP956-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/21/10
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Burris: Byron C. Lichstein
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Was the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction that was issued in response to a question from the jury and that quoted verbatim from a Supreme Court opinion an impermissibly misleading instruction under the standards established by State v. Lohmeier, 205 Wis. 2d 183,
State v. David D. Funk, 2008AP2765-CR, Wis SCt Rev Granted 9/24/10
decision below: unpublished summary disposition; for Funk: Michele Anne Tjader
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a juror was subjectively and/or objectively biased under the test set forth in State v. Delgado, 223 Wis. 2d 270, 588 N.W.2d 1 (1999).
Briefs, appellate decision, petition for review: none is posted, so you can’t readily tell what the case is about. CCAP indicates that this is a sexual assault case and that the judge granted new trial because a juror failed to reveal on voir dire she’d been a sexual assault victim herself.
Hearing-Impaired Juror; Record Reconstruction
State v. Precious M. Ward, 2009AP2085-CR, District 1, 10/5/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Ward: Lew A. Wasserman; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Hearing-Impaired Juror
Juror who was hearing impaired, but not completely so; who could lip read; and for whom the trial judge took precautions to make sure he could hear everything, was qualified to sit.
Obstructing – Unanimity – Course of Conduct; Obstructing – Sufficiency of Proof
State v. Jennette L. Ellifritz, 2010AP713-CR, District 2, 9/1/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ellifritz: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Obstructing – Unanimity – Course of Conduct
Because Ellifritz’s actions occurred during a single course of action, over a short (40-second) period of time, instructional failure to require agreement as to which separate act constituted obstructing didn’t violate her right to unanimous verdict;
Evidence / IAC: Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA; Instruction: Recording Policy Interrogation; Impeachment: Prior Convictions
State v. Tarence A. Banks, 2010 WI App 107; for Banks: Scott D. Obernberger; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA – Ineffective Assistance
Prosecutorial use of Banks’ refusal, after arrest, to provide a warrantless DNA sample penalized him for exercising a constitutional right. Because no contemporaneous objection was made, the issue is raised as ineffective assistance of counsel,
Venue: Instruction, Proof; Obstructing: Proof; Instruction: Recently Stolen Property
State v. Donald L. Schultz, 2010 WI App 124 (decision originally issued 7/20/10, subsequently withdrawn; reissued 8/17/10); for Schultz: Margaret A. Maroney, Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Venue – Instruction
¶12 Although venue is not an element of a crime, it nonetheless must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Jury Instructions: Exposing Child to Harmful Materials – Accident Defense – Waiver; Evidence: Richard A.P. – Corroboration Rule; Evidence: Character – Polygraph Offer; Voluntary Statement
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2010 WI App 104, reversed, 2011 WI 63, see: this post; for Gonzalez: Kristin Anne Hodorowski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Jury Instructions – Exposing Child to Harmful Materials
The pattern instruction on exposing a child to harmful material, § 948.11(2)(a), accurately recites the elements, including scienter.
¶11 We agree with the trial court’s assessment that the pattern instruction accurately states the law.
State v. Shane R. Heindl, No. 2009AP2534-CR, District IV, 5/27/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Heindl: Lisa A. McDougal; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Jury Instructions – Self-Defense
Trial for battery, which the State theorized occurred when Heindl put Lien in a headlock from behind. Heindl himself suffered scratches and swelling about an eye, but was seriously drunk and had difficulty giving a coherent account to the police. He did not testify,
State v. Katherine S. Lonski, No. 2009AP1966-CR, District I, 4/27/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Lonski: Basil M. Loeb; BiC; Resp.
Self-Defense
Lonski’s claim of self-defense (that she was protecting herself from “unlawful” use of force by a uniformed officer) was rejected as not credible by the trial court in a bench trial, and that credibility determination wasn’t clearly erroneous.
Jury Waiver
Lonski’s jury waiver was adequately canvassed,