On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Various challenges to OWI conviction rejected
State v. Kody R. Kohn, 2020AP2147-CR, District 2, 9/22/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kohn argues the circuit court erred in: 1) denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the blood drawn from him after his arrest; 2) excluding exhibits he wanted to use to cross examine the state’s blood analyst; and 3) rejecting his motion to dismiss a bail jumping charge. The court of appeals affirms all the circuit court’s decisions.
Defense win on suppression of evidence relating to destroyed blood sample, loss on sanctions against County
County of Milwaukee v. Ross J. Romenesko, 2017AP1042-1044, 6/19/18, District 1, (1-judge appeal, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Romenesko prevailed below–the circuit court (1) suppressed a revised report relating to his blood sample, (2) precluded but one of its experts from testifying, and eventually (3) dismissed the the OWI 1st offense and operating with a PAC 1st offense charges against him as a sanction against the County. The court of appeals affirmed the suppression decision but reversed the other 2 decisions.
Court of Appeals rejects challenges to child sexual assault convictions
State v. Timothy P. Gregory, 2016AP1265-CR, District 2, 3/14/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In this lengthy decision, the court of appeals rejects multiple challenges Gregory makes to his convictions for child sexual assault that occurred in 1997.
Court of appeals ignores “Perry Mason” moment; finds defense discovery violation, but no ineffective assistance of counsel
State v. William J. Thurber, 2015AP161-CR, 7/27/16, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
“Was Thurber’s trial a game being played or was it a trial designed to search for the truth? Thurber is certainly no angel as evidenced by his current long-term incarceration for crimes apart from this case. I believe the justice system best defines itself by scrupulously adhering to high standards when the worst of the worst comes before it. We travel a slippery slope when we excuse mistakes by the judiciary, the State, and defense counsel because we ‘know’ the defendant is a criminal.” Slip op. ¶91. (Reilly, J. dissenting).
Spare the rod, spoil the State
State v. L.C., 2016AP81, 5/25/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication; case activity
That sums up the court of appeals’ decision in this juvenile delinquency case. The State failed to timely provide the defense with a copy of L.C.’s recorded confession and a witness list before trial. The circuit court and court of appeals shrugged off these discovery violations.
Yearlong failure to disclose witnesses merits exclusion
State v. Caroline D. Prieto, 2016 WI App 15; case activity (including briefs)
Nearly three years after the defense demand, and a year after the first (of two) court orders to produce a witness list, the state still hadn’t done so. The circuit court’s response? No list, no witnesses. The state appeals and…
Evidence excluded from state’s case-in-chief because of discovery violation is admissible in rebuttal; “sleeping juror” issue resolved by lack of finding that juror was sleeping
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.
Discovery – Witness List Violation
State v. Ludwig Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717
For Guzman: Robert E. Haney
Issue: Whether the trial court properly excluded a defense witness who had not been timely named as a witness.
Holding:
¶22 The record supports the trial court’s discretionary decision to exclude Rosado’s testimony. Guzman was aware of this witness from the date of the incident.