On Point

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether statements made by the declarant to others describing various threats made by the defendant were admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception, § 908.03(3).

Holding:

¶60                        Since there are no Wisconsin cases that have resolved this issue, we look to federal cases for guidance in applying the same rule. 

State v. Robert L. Snider, 2003 WI App 172, PFR filed 8/22/03
For Snider: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue: Whether a child-victim’s videotaped statement must satisfy all the conditions in § 908.08, or may instead satisfy the residual exception.

Holding:

¶12. We agree with the State that the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 908.08(7) permits the admission of a child’s videotaped statement under any applicable hearsay exception regardless of whether the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) have been met. 

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding1:

¶51. The recent perception exception is similar to the hearsay exceptions for present sense impression and excited utterances, but was intended to allow more time between the observation of the event and the statement in cases where the declarant is unavailable and the evidence would otherwise be lost.

State v. Robert Jamont Wright, 2003 WI App 252
For Wright: Ann Auberry

Issue/Holding:

¶43. Wright argues that Lomack’s testimony was relevant on the issue of whether the police lineup was suggestive. In assessing relevance, the trial court must determine whether the evidence has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

State v. William A. Silva, 2003 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/4/03
For Silva: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Donald E. Chewning

Issue/Holding:

¶29 …. Silva’s brother testified that on the day of the assault Silva attended a service that discussed the act of “sinning again.” Silva’s brother stated that Silva sat down during the discussion while everyone else remained standing. This behavior is consistent with the conduct of a person who has recently committed a crime and is admissible as such.

State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03
For Swinson: Pamela Pepper

Issue/Holding: Greater statutory double jeopardy protection afforded drug prosecution under § 961.45 than non-drug prosecution under § 939.71 doesn’t violate equal protection:

¶55. We note that while Wis. Stat. § 939.71 adheres to the dual sovereignty doctrine, Wis. Stat. § 961.45 does not. We therefore conclude, as the supreme court did in Petty,

State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks, 2003 WI 104, overruling State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks,
For Meeks: Christopher T. Van Wagner

Issue: Whether the trial court, in ruling on competency, improperly relied on its perceptions of the defendant’s attorney in a prior case, in stressing that that attorney hadn’t raised competency.

Holding:

¶1     … 

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, on certification (subsequently reversed on other grounds, State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47)
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose

Issue/Holding: Supreme court disposition of an earlier appeal via summary order is law of the case as to subsequent appeal; the order resolved a question of law despite failing to state reasons: though an affirmance of a discretionary ruling may not determine a question of law,

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: A court of appeals holding in a case reversed by the supreme court on other grounds, so that this holding was neither “overruled, withdrawn, or modified,” continues to bind the court of appeals. ¶13.

The court of appeals had held under similar circumstances to Gary M.B.’s that defensive use didn’t trigger waiver, 

 State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee

Issue/Holding: Although a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is not waived by a guilty plea (because such a defect would go to subject matter jurisdiction, something not subject to waiver), an “as applied” challenged is waived by the plea. ¶46.