On Point blog, page 6 of 7
§ 904.03, Balancing Test – Richard A.P. Evidence
State v. Steven G. Walters, 2004 WI 18, reversing 2003 WI App 24
For Walters: David A. Danz
Issue/Holding:
¶16. … The term “Richard A.P. evidence” comes from a decision of the court of appeals in which a defendant accused of molesting a child sought to introduce character evidence through the testimony of a psychologist. State v.
§ 904.04, Construction — General
State v. Gregory J. Franklin, 2004 WI 38, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Franklin: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶11. Wisconsin Stat. § 904.04(2) evidence may be offered in a criminal trial or a civil suit. State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 783, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998) and Daniel B. Blinka, Evidence of Character,
Binding Authority — Retroactivity of New Decision — “New” Rule of Law
State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63, 260 Wis. 2d 805, 659 N.W.2d 501
For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge
Issue/Holding:
¶26. Likewise, it is clear that under Wisconsin’s formulation of the Teague doctrine, the rule we announced in Douangmala was “new.” “‘[A] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’”
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Deportation – Retroactivity of Douangmala
State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63
For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge
Issue/Holding: Holding of State v. Sisakhone S. Douangmala , 2002 WI 62 (non-citizen’s guilty plea invalid if colloquy omits deportation consequences, regardless of whether defendant in fact knows those consequences) does not apply retroactively to defendants who have already exhausted their direct appeals.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Plea Bargain not Binding
State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, affirming 2002 WI App 293, 259 Wis. 2d. 455, 655 N.W.2d 131
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue1: Whether the trial court must advise a guilty plea defendant personally on the record that the court isn’t bound by a plea agreement, and ascertain whether the defendant understands this information.
Holding1:
¶27 In Wisconsin,
Calling and Interrogation by Judge, § 906.14
State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin
Issue/Holding:
¶39 … (A)ppellate courts are sensitive to judicial intervention by a trial judge in the form of judicial witnesses and judicial questioning ….
¶40 … We have always recognized judicial authority to call and interrogate witnesses but simultaneously admonished caution against judicial abuse.
Truthfulness of Another Witness, Comment On — Comment by One Witness on Whether Another Witness “Is Lying”
State v. Victor K. Johnson, 2004 WI 94, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
Issue: Whether the State impermissibly cross-examined the defendant about the truthfulness of another witness.
Holding:
¶2. We conclude that the purpose and effect of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Johnson was to impeach Johnson’s credibility, not to bolster the credibility of another witness, because both Johnson and the other witness were testifying to their personal observations about the same events.
SVP – Disposition: Supervised Release – Revocation – Consideration of Alternatives to Revocation
State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866
For Burris: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue: Whether, on revocation of supervised release of a sexually violent person, § 980.06(2)(d) (1997-98), the circuit “court must, for any reason, expressly consider alternatives to revocation before revoking supervised release when the court determines that the safety of others requires revocation,
Guilty Pleas – Post-Sentencing Plea Withdrawal: Suppression of Material Exculpatory Impeachment Evidence – Constitutional Basis
State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813
For Harris: Steven A. Koch
Issue/Holding:
¶16 Therefore, the court of appeals in the instant case misstated the law when it held that “the State violates the Constitution if it withholds the type of information that could form the basis for further investigation by the defense[,]”
Attorney-client Communications, § 905.03 – Waiver by Counsel’s Voluntary but Mistaken Disclosure
Sampson v. Sampson, 2004 WI 57, reversing 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis. 2d 803, 667 N.W.2d 831
Issue: “¶2 The question before this court is whether a lawyer’s voluntary production of documents in response to opposing counsel’s discovery request constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 905.11 when the lawyer does not recognize that the documents are subject to the attorney-client privilege and the documents are produced without the consent or knowledge of the client.”
Holding:
¶4 We agree with the circuit court.