State v. Jacob A. Martinez, 2015AP272, District 2, 8/5/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible of publication); case activity (including briefs) Though there were multiple tests of the blood drawn from Martinez after his arrest for OWI—one for ethanol, two for THC (the second necessitated by the invalidity of the results of the first test)—the record and testimony… Read more
I. Authentication, Ch. 909
Nicole Marie Thomas v. Korry Ardell, 2014AP295, District 4, 11/13/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to admit cell phone records because the proponent of the evidence didn’t provide a proper foundation by presenting either the testimony of a qualified witness or a proper certification proving authenticity… Read more
State v. Robert Vincent McCoy, 2012AP2583-CR, District 1, 1/7/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity An armed robbery outside a bar was caught on the security camera of a nearby homeowner, who gave a copy of the video to the police by uploading it on YouTube and emailing it to the… Read more
State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Computer-Generated Report (Electronic Monitoring Device) – Foundation Expert testimony isn’t necessary to lay a foundation for admissibility for a computer-generated EMD report: ¶28 Closing down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement… Read more
decision below: unpublished; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Issues (formulated by On Point): Whether admission into evidence of electronic monitoring daily summary reports requires expert testimony to lay a foundation as to accuracy and reliability. Whether the daily summary reports fall outside the definition of hearsay because they don’t represent assertions… Read more
State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line) The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the… Read more
State v. John D. Harris, 2009AP3140-CR, District 1, 8/17/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harris: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply Testimony of an investigator relating the contents of a recording wasn’t inadmissible under the best evidence rule, § 910.02. ¶11 Although the best evidence rule generally requires an original recording… Read more
State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78 For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly Issue/Holding: Foundational requirement of probative value applies to computer-generated animation used as demonstrative exhibit to recreate crime scene: ¶17 Turning to probative value, we examine the State’s… Read more
