State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial. Batterman was originally… Read more
g. Field sobriety tests
State v. Kyle R. Christoffersen, 2014AP1282, District 2, 1/28/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The judge at Christoffersen’s refusal hearing didn’t violate Christoffersen’s due process rights when it limited cross-examination about the arresting officer’s training on, and administration of, field sobriety tests and refused to allow Christoffersen to make an offer of proof by questioning the… Read more
City of Mequon v. James E. Haynor, 2010AP466-FT, District 2, 9/8/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haynor: Peter L. Ramirez; BiC; Resp.; Reply Expert Witness Qualifications – Lab Chemist: Physiological Effects of Drugs The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in qualifying as an expert, the supervisor of forensic toxicology at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene on the matter… Read more
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36 For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: ¶14. In Wisconsin, the general standard for admissibility is very low. Generally, evidence need only be relevant to be admissible. See Wis. Stat. § 904.02; State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 411, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998) (“All relevant evidence is… Read more
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36 For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: Field sobriety tests (alphabet and finger-to-nose tests; and heel-to-toe walk) “are observational tools, not litmus tests that scientifically correlate certain types or numbers of ‘clues’ to various blood alcohol concentrations,” ¶17. Thus, the officer’s observations of Wilkens’ performance isn’t treated… Read more
