State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243 For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall Issue/Holding1: The confrontation clause doesn’t prohibit a witness from reading to the jury admissible medical records: ¶13 First, as we have seen, the certified medical records were received by the trial court without objection. Certainly, the jurors could have read the… Read more
Published 2005
State v. Boon Savanh, 2005 WI App 245 For Savanh: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding1: Statement of coconspirator during drug transaction, conveyed to jury via police informant buying drugs as part of controlled buy, not “testimonial”: ¶25 We do not think an objective witness would reasonably believe that Vongrasamy would have thought his informal telephone conversation… Read more
State v. Donavin Hemphill, 2005 WI App 248 N.B. The holding quoted below was overruled, in State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, ¶24n. 8. In other words, “a spontaneous statement to a police officer” is not, as a matter of law, non-testimonial. For Hemphill: Jeffrey Jensen Issue/Holding: An out-of-court statement by a witness… Read more
State v. Kevin D. James, 2005 WI App 188 For James: Terry W. Rose Issue/Holding: The mere fact that § 908.08 imposes a mandatory protocol (videotape admitted into evidence first; child called to testify afterward) violates neither confrontation, ¶¶10-14, nor separation-of-powers, ¶¶15-25, doctrines.This statutory procedure allows the State to introduce a child’s videotaped statement, with… Read more
State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238 For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Pretrial videotaped statement, § 908.08(5), doesn’t violate confrontation when the person actually testifies, ¶24… Read more
State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80 For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 n. 3: Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court construed article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution as providing greater protection against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S… Read more
State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250 For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ….”… Read more
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85 For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial Issue/Holding: ¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth… Read more
