On Point: 41. Trial Procedures

State v. Richard N. Konkol, 2002 WI App 174
For Konkol: Brian Hough

Issue/Holding: The proper test for admissibility of rebuttal evidence isn’t whether it could have been admitted in, or would have been useful to, the state’s case-in-chief, but whether it meets new facts put in by the defendant. ¶¶18-19.

¶18      Thus, the only other basis for barring the witness would be that she was not a bona fide rebuttal witness. 

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227

For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in questioning prospective jurors outside the presence of defendant and counsel, on “hardship and infirmity requests” not to serve.

Holding: Questioning jurors about undue hardships “does not implicate the purposes of voir dire that are the premise for a defendant’s constitutional entitlement to be present with counsel” (namely,

State v. William F. Williams, 2000 WI App 123, 237 Wis.2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11

For Williams: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court improperly refused to adjourn trial so that the defense could secure presence of a witness.

Holding: Because the absent witness’s proposed testimony was vague as to details in support of alibi, the trial court didn’t err in finding insufficient materiality to support adjournment.

State v. Lawrence P. Peters, 2000 WI App 154, 237 Wis. 2d 741, 615 N.W.2d 655, petition for rev. gr., 11/15/00, reversed on other grounds, 2001 WI 74
For Peters: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether a prior offense may be used to enhance a current one, where the plea and sentencing on the prior offense were accomplished by closed-circuit television.
Holding: Although the procedure used in the prior offense violated the &sect 971.04(1) statutory mandate of actual physical presence,

State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126

For Leighton: Daniel Snyder

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in denying a continuance based on assertions that lead counsel wanted to obtain assistance of another attorney in trying the case, and also was having difficulty locating certain witnesses.

Holding: Given that these witnesses ultimately testified, and that the desired attorney never made an appearance or filed a notice of retainer,

State v. Larry D. Harris, 229 Wis.2d 832, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Harris: William S. Coleman, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.
Issue: Whether defendant’s rights to presence and counsel were violated by their absence from at least part of voir dire.
Holding: Defendant has both a nonwaivable statutory right to presence, and also a constitutional right to assistance of counsel, at jury selection.
Go to Brief

City of Fond du Lac v. Scott R. Kaehne, 229 Wis.2d 323, 599 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1999).

Holding: In civil action (here, OWI 1st), appearance of defendant may be made by letter, rather than in person, therefore time limit for demanding jury trial began running when defendant sent letter to court stating intent to plead not guilty.

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Edmunds: Dean A. Strang.
Holding: Edmunds is held to have waived her right to be present when the parties and the court discussed dismissal of a juror for cause. The dismissal is upheld, where the juror conveyed opinions about the case, before hearing all evidence.