court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Oetzman: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.; Reply Traffic Stop – U-Turn ¶8 As such, three rules of the road come into play.Under Wis. Stat. § 346.34(1), no person may turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway… Read more
1. Types of evidence
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
State v. Pablo G. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120 For Quiroz: Glen B. Kulkoski Issue/Holding: ¶18 Law and Discussion: It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis. 2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct. App. 1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct… Read more
State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06 For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1: Evidence of the driver’s marijuana use just before the accident resulting in the charged homicide by negligent use of vehicle was relevant and admissible: ¶48 Although the toxicology expert could not tie the level of THC detected in… Read more
State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman Issue/Holding: ¶39 Finally, we determine that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to admit testimony regarding Shomberg’s offer to take a polygraph examination. … However, such an offer is only “relevant… 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
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: On charges of drug trafficking while armed, possession of guns (along with flash suppressor and bulletproof vest) was admissible as relevant for purposes other than “bad character,” ¶¶35-39. (State v. Spraggin, 77 Wis. 2d 89, 252 N.W.2d 94 (1977) and… Read more
