On Point

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the prosecutor properly cross-examined an alibi witness as to what the defendant had told him about his prior offense.

Holding:

¶21. Further, even if the 1992 conviction could have been properly admitted, using this evidence on cross-examination was improper. Other acts evidence is admitted for a specific purpose.

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

Issue1: Whether testimony by a state’s expert amounted to “Jensen” testimony, i.e., expert opinion that the sexual assault complainant’s behavior was consistent with that of sexual assault victims in general.

Holding:

¶21.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.

Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.”

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the alleged victim’s entire testimony at prior proceedings was properly admitted into evidence, under prior consistent statement or rule of completeness rationales.

Holding:

¶25. The trial court admitted the entire prior testimony under two theories: (1) the testimony constituted prior consistent statements under Wis. Stat.

State v. Ludwig Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717
For Guzman: Robert E. Haney

Issue: Whether the trial court properly excluded a defense witness who had not been timely named as a witness.

Holding:

¶22 The record supports the trial court’s discretionary decision to exclude Rosado’s testimony. Guzman was aware of this witness from the date of the incident.

State v. Edward A. Murillo, 2001 WI App 11, 240 Wis. 2d 666, 623 N.W.2d 187, habeas relief granted, Edward A. Murillo v. Frank, 402 F3d 786 (7th Cir. 2005)
For Murillo: Craig Albee

Issue: Whether a statement implicating defendant in a homicide and made by his brother and fellow gang member while in police custody satisfied the against-social-interest hearsay exception,

State v. Daniel Williams, 2001 WI App 155
For Williams: Adrienne M. Moore, SPD, Racine Trial

Issue: Whether the grant of a petition for supervised release (§ 980.08) can be vacated on the basis of a periodic re-examination report (§ 980.07) which is a mere assessment of the same information utilized during the supervised release proceeding.

Holding: A motion for relief from judgment, § 980.07,

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, PFR filed
For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a witness should have been permitted to demonstrate with a doll the force used to cause injuries to the child victim.

Holding: The fact that the experts couldn’t agree on the exact cause of the injuries goes to weight, not admissibility, of the demonstration.

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether distinct types of sexual assault (mouth-vagina and penis-vagina) necessarily support distinct counts.

Holding:

¶59     There is another reason Koller’s second multiplicity challenge fails.  This second claim is directed primarily at the relationship between Count 4 (mouth-to-vagina contact), on the one hand, and Counts 3 and 5 (penis-to-vagina intercourse),

State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 626 N.W.2d 195, on certification
For Hansen: Pamela Pepper

Issue: “¶8 … ‘Does Wis. Stat. § 961.45 bar prosecution for the state crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, where a defendant previously has been convicted, based on the same conduct, for the federal crime of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute? Stated differently,