Annette Petrowsky v. Brad Krause, 223 Wis. 2d 32, 588 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998) For Krause: Russell D. Bohach For Petrowsky: Thomas McAdams, Pro Bono Project Issue/Holding: The issue on appeal is who constitutes a “household member” under the domestic abuse statute. This involves the construction of a statute. Interpretation of a statute is… Read more
Published 1998
State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998) For Hahn: Bruce Elbert Issue/Holding: The meaning of “gambling machine” is sufficiently well-understood as to survive a vagueness challenge. (The court reserves whether “contrivance” might be vague when applied to facts not raised by this case.)… Read more
State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998) For Hahn: Bruce Elbert Issue/Holding: We reject Hahn’s argument that expert testimony was necessary to establish that these video poker machines were gambling machines. Although Hahn refers to cases from other jurisdictions in which technical aspects of the machines’ functions… Read more
State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998) For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A trial court sitting as fact-finder6 may derive inferences from the testimony and take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute,7 but it may not establish… Read more
State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998) For Richard: Robert Henak Holding: The trial court reversibly erred in refusing to allow an expert psychologist to testify that defendant “did not show any evidence of any diagnosable sexual disorder. … [and] that absent a diagnosable disorder, it is unlikely that… Read more
State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998). For Richard: Robert Henak. Issue/Holding: Diagnosis of multiple personality disorder, to impeach witness: evidence of mental impairment does not, without more, affect witness’s credibility. Without evidence that this condition affected the witness’s recall ability, it is irrelevant… Read more
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998) For Sveum: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Where the defendant sought admissibility of a statement by a non-testifying declarant on the basis that it was not offered for its truthfulness, but the statement would have probative value only if offered for… Read more
State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998) For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The State provides no authority to support the trial court’s imposition of a requirement that, as a matter of law, expert testimony is necessary to establish a foundation for video images… Read more
