On Point blog, page 9 of 16
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…
Court okays joinder of sex crimes involving five victims
State v. Eric Christopher Bell, 2014AP2899-CR and 2014AP2900-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Bell raises two challenges to the joinder of ten counts involving five victims; the court rejects both.
E pluribus unum: Court of Appeals addresses notice, unanimity, venue and statute of limitations issues arising from charging multiple thefts in a single count
State v. Jeffrey L. Elverman, 2015 WI App 91; case activity (including state’s brief)
The court rejects all challenges to a conviction of theft of more than $10,000. The issues mostly spring from the state’s use of Wis. Stat. § 971.36(4), which permits, under certain circumstances, the aggregation of multiple thefts into a single count.
Trial court properly excluded defendant’s testimony that injunction petitioner was “stalking” him
State v. Randall Ray Madison, 2015AP451-CR & 2015AP452-CR, District 1, 8/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Madison, who was charged with violating a domestic abuse injunction obtained against him by L.M., wanted to testify that L.M. “stalks me.” (¶5). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding this testimony.
SCOW invalidates Wisconsin statute governing coordination between candidates and certain independent groups; halts John Doe probe based on alleged violations of the law
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson et al.; State of Wisconsin ex rel. Francis D. Schmitz v. the Honorable Gregory Peterson, & State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson, et al., 2015 WI 85, issued 7/16/15; case activity: Two Unnamed Petitioners; Schmitz v. Peterson; Three Unnamed Petitioners
Unless you’ve just returned from a trip to a remote corner of the globe that’s beyond the reach of news media, you know by now that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided the so-called “John Doe” cases. The court’s decision ordered a halt into the investigation of coordinated fundraising and spending between candidate committees and certain independent groups during the 2011-12 recall campaigns. Gargantuan by any standard, the decision goes on for almost 400 pages, with a majority opinion, two concurrences (Prosser and Ziegler), and two dissents/concurrences (Abrahamson and Crooks). It contains almost nothing of relevance to ordinary criminal law practice. However, in the interest of helping orient readers who may want to look more closely at the decision, below the break is a summary of the major issues and how the various opinions address them.
Statute authorizing hearsay at prelims doesn’t violate ex post facto prohibition
State v. David E. Hull, 2015 WI App 46; case activity (including briefs)
The recently enacted statute allowing the admission of hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law because it affects only the evidence that may be admitted at the preliminary hearing and does not alter the quantum or nature of evidence necessary to convict the defendant. In addition, the court commissioner properly refused to allow Hull to call the alleged victim to testify at the preliminary hearing because the anticipated testimony was not relevant to the probable cause inquiry.
Victim’s inconsistent testimony didn’t make testimony inherently or patently incredible
State v. Brandon L. P-D., 2014AP2785, District 4, 5/14/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects Brandon’s arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support his delinquency adjudication for incest because of the victim’s inconsistent testimony. The court also rejects his arguments that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for in camera review of the victmi’s medical records and in excluding evidence of a previous sexual assault of the victim.
Scattershot attack on conviction for criminal damage to property and armed robbery misses marks
State v. Clifton Robinson, 2014AP1575-CR, 3/31/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs and docket
The court of appeals here rejects a barrage of challenges to Robinson’s conviction for criminal damage to property and armed robbery with use of force–everything from a Batson challenge, to severance issues, to the sufficiency of evidence, to the admission of prejudicial evidence and more.
State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2011AP2680-CR, petition for review granted 3/16/15
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (composed by On Point)
Should State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993), and State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, 253 Wis. 2d 536, 646 N.W.2d 298, be overruled?
If the Shiffra/Green rule is not discarded, should the rule be modified to allow a witness to testify even if he or she refuses to disclose the confidential records the defendant is seeking?
“I was out of town at time of the crime” is an alibi, not a “simple defense”
State v. Derek J. Copeland, 2014AP929-CR, 3/5/15, District 4 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs
This case explores the line between a between a “simple defense” defined as “I was last at the scene of the crime on a date that preceded the crime” versus an “alibi” defense defined as “I was at a different location and unable to get to the scene of the crime on the date it occurred.”