On Point blog, page 12 of 17
Evidence sufficient to support jury’s sexual assualt verdict against gynecologist; joinder of claims upheld
State v. Evan K. Saunders, 2013AP1229-CR, District 1, 11/5/13 (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
This case concerns a gynecologist’s sexual assault of 4 different patients over 2 1/2 years.
Sufficiency of evidence: Fourth degree sexual assault requires proof that the defendant had “sexual contact” with the victim without her consent. Wis. Stat. § 940.225(3m). And “sexual contact,” among other things, requires evidence that the defendant acted either with intent to harm the victim,
Court rejects sufficiency claim based on discrepancies between charging document and proof
State v. Dragisa Pavlovic, 2013AP1180-CR, District 2, 10/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Pavlovic was charged with bail jumping for violating bond conditions that included no contact with his wife or her residence. (¶2). One count alleged he had contact with his wife on July 23; the evidence at trial, however, showed only that he had contact with her residence that day;
State’s handling of photo array evidence did not violate due process or discovery statute
State v. Raynard Rashawn Jackson, 2012AP1854, 2012AP1861, and 2012AP1862, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP1854; 2012AP1861; 2012AP1862
Jackson was alleged to have been involved in a shooting, and as part of their investigation the police constructed a photo array to show to three eyewitnesses, all of whom identified Jackson. (¶¶2, 10-11). The array consisted of photos of Jackson and five other persons.
Joinder — multiple incidents of armed robbery, two of which also involved homicide. Identification — suggestiveness of photo array
State v. Deontaye Terrel Lusk, 2012AP587-CR, 2012AP588-CR, 2012AP589-CR, & 2012AP590-CR, District 1, 7/16/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP587-CR; 2012AP588-CR; 2012AP589-CR; 2012AP590-CR
Joinder
Lusk was charged in four cases with crimes arising from five armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery that occurred in April, May, June, and July, 2009. In two of the robberies the victim was killed,
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Ethics rule governing prosecutor’s duty to disclose information to defense is not more demanding than the constitutional duty to disclose
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sharon A. Riek, 2103 WI 81 (per curiam), affirming referee’s dismissal of disciplinary complaint; case activity
The supreme court holds that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose information to the defense under SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) does not impose a broader duty to disclose than the constitutional duty imposed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Guest Post: Marcus Berghahn on the Court of Appeals decision upholding the use of hearsay at preliminary hearings
State v. Martin P. O’Brien, State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97.
As briefly noted in a previous post, the Court of Appeals has upheld Wis. Stat. § 970.038, which makes hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings and allows bindover based solely on hearsay. On Point is pleased to present this guest post about the decision by Attorney Marcus Berghahn,
Court of Appeals upholds statute making hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings and allowing bindover based solely on hearsay
State v. Martin P. O’Brien, State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Martin O’Brien; Kathleen O’Brien; Charles Butts.
¶1 The newly enacted Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence.
Change of venue based on pretrial publicity; denial of speedy trial; newly discovered evidence
State v. Michael T. O’Haver, 2011Ap2930-CR, District 2/4, 6/20/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Change of venue
The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying O’Haver’s motion to change venue, applying State v. Albrecht, 184 Wis. 2d 287, 306, 516 N.W.2d 776 (Ct. App. 1994). There were a limited number of potentially objectionable pretrial media reports describing the homicide and distress of the victim’s family.
Statute of limitations, § 939.74(1) — sufficiency of “John Doe” complaint’s identification of defendant for purposes of tolling statute of limitations; denial of right to self-representation or to substitution of counsel
State v. Rodney Washington, 2012AP1015-CR, District 1, 3/26/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Statute of limitations, § 939.74(1) — sufficiency of “John Doe” complaint’s identification of defendant for purposes of tolling statute of limitations
The crimes in this case—sexual assault and robbery—were alleged to have occurred in 1994 and 1995. In 2000, eleven days before the statute of limitations was to run,
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.