On Point

State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26 For Harvey: Christopher William Rose Issue/Holding: Rejecting the JI Committee definition of “cunnilingus,” the court “ conclude(s) that the statutory scheme of the sexual assault law does not require proof of ‘stimulation of the clitoris or vulva,’” ¶¶11-21. ¶21      The complaint and the undisputed evidence presented […]

State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26 For Harvey: Christopher William Rose Issue/Holding: Plea bargain, which permitted State to comment on facts but not to make specific sentencing recommendation was not violated by State’s presentation of victim and others who themselves asked for maximum penalty: ¶40      We first disagree that the State breached […]

State v. Reinier A. Ravesteijn, 2006 WI App 250 For Ravesteijn: Rudolph L. Oldeschulte Issue/Holding: ¶6        Ravesteijn, a citizen of the Netherlands, argues that the trial court was obligated to consider whether he needed an interpreter and to obtain his personal waiver of the right to an interpreter. See State v. Neave, 117 Wis. 2d […]

State v. Anna Annina, 2006 WI App 202 For Annina: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: ¶9        Annina seeks to withdraw her Alford plea on the grounds that a manifest injustice has occurred. “Withdrawal of a plea following sentencing is not allowed unless it is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”  State v. Smith, 202 Wis.  2d 21, 25, 549 […]

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶39      Questions that call for a narrative are generally improper because they do not alert court and counsel to the subject about which the witness is about to testify. There are exceptions, however, and whether […]

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶35      … Rule 906.08(2) permits the cross-examination of a witness about “extrinsic” matters, “if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness.” Certainly, lying on direct-examination, and repeating the lie on cross-examination, is “probative of truthfulness.” Moreover, Rodriguez […]

State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48 For Olson: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination of a principal State’s witness was impermissibly curtailed when the trial court abruptly ended inquiry into whether the witness had threatened to cause the defendant (her ex-husband) “trouble” following his remarriage, where: The witness testified only with the aid of […]

State v. Walter T. Missouri, 2006 WI App 74 For Missouri: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue: Whether the defense should have been allowed to cross-examine the arresting officer about an instance of misconduct between the officer and a third party which was assertedly very similar to the defense theory that the officer mistreated the defendant and planted […]

State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman Issue/Holding: Trial court’s refusal to admit expert testimony on factors influencing witness’s ability to identify a stranger during a lineup procedure, in particular the distorting effect of a simultaneous as opposed to sequential procedure, was not […]

State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8 For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶48 Here, Adams’ statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance hearsay exception. Adams spontaneously made the statements, without police prompting, under the stress of watching her cousin being taken into custody at gunpoint. It was only one to two […]