Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Defendant
State v. Scott G. Zuniga, 2002 WI App 233, PFR filed 9/13/02 For Zuniga: Chad G. Kerkman Issue/Holding: Because the defendant was warned by the judge at a bond-release hearing that if he engaged in misconduct the state would seek a longer sentence, “the parties effectively modified the plea agreement by making the State’s obligation conditional upon […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Presumptive Minimum Penalty
State v. Paul Delao Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52 For Quiroz: Chad G. Kerkman Issue:Whether defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea on the basis that he was unaware of the three-year presumptive minimum sentence on the weapon enhancer. Holding: ¶25 Both the complaint and the information contained the dangerous weapon enhancer and set forth […]
Witness – Impeachment — Pending Charges
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Holding: A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the […]
Character — Extrinsic Proof, § 906.08(2)
State v. Troy D. Moore, 2002 WI App 245 For Moore: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Extrinsic evidence offered by the state solely to bolster a witness’s credibility, by showing that he had provided reliable information leading to the arrests of other drug dealers, violated § 906.08(2). ¶15. (Note: the court holds open the question […]
“Shiffra” Material – “Jensen” Testimony not Enough to Trigger
State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 854 For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel Issue: Whether the prosecution opened the door to otherwise privileged “Shiffra” evidence. Holding: ¶51. Before trial, the circuit court found that there was nothing relevant in D.F.’s treatment records that was […]
Qualifications — Gang Affiliation
State v. Tito J. Long, 2002 WI App 114, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Long: Ann T. Bowe Issue/Holding: Officer’s background, including “gang training” and investigations into numerous gang-related shootings, made him qualified to testify as to gang activities in city. ¶26.
Expert Witness – Comment On Truthfulness of Another Witness
State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38 For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8. After reviewing these cases, we can discern some general rules: (1) an expert witness can offer opinion testimony only if it complies with Wis. Stat. § 907.02; (2) the testimony can include opinions […]
Hearsay – Authentication of Document
State v. Gary L. Gordon, 2002 WI App 53, affirmed, 2003 WI 69 For Gordon: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether proof-of-service documents, introduced to show defendant’s knowledge of a domestic violence injunction, violated the hearsay rule. Holding: ¶43. … However, these documents were not made under oath or attested to in any […]
Narrative Statement — Distinct Assertions — Admissibility Methodology
State v. Shelleen B. Joyner, 2002 WI App 250, PFR filed 10/24/02 For Joyner: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶18. Shelleen Joyner argues that Trudy Joyner’s statement is against her penal interest, however, because Trudy Joyner admitted that she “knowingly helped a robber escape.” We disagree. “[W]hen ruling upon a narrative’s admissibility … […]
Prior Inconsistent Statement — Foundational Requirement, §§ 906.11(1), 906.13(2)(a)2
State v. Zebelum Smith, 2002 WI App 118, PFR filed 5/9/02 For Smith: Erich C. Straub Issue: Whether, as a foundational requirement for introducing a witness’s prior inconsistent statement, the witness must be given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement. Holding: Although § 906.13(2)(a)1 suggests that the witness must first be given opportunity […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.