Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

§ 901.03, Objection/Offer of Proof – sufficiency – cite to applicable caselaw

State v. David C. Tutlewski, 231 Wis.2d 379, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tutlewski: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether citation to relevant authority preserved an evidentiary objection.

Holding: The issue was preserved by contemporaneous objection that included citation to relevant caselaw:

¶10     At trial and before Carver was permitted to testify, Tutlewski renewed his objection to the State’s calling of Carver.  Tutlewski maintained that the only reason the State was calling Carver was to bolster Michelle’s and Jeremy’s credibility, that such testimony was inadmissible under § 906.08, Stats., and that under State v. Kuehl, 199 Wis.2d 143, 545 N.W.2d 840 (Ct. App. 1995), no witness should be permitted to provide an opinion that another mentally and physically competent witness is telling the truth.  In Kuehl, this court concluded that a party could not question a witness as to the truth of another witness’s statements because under Haseltine, “No witness, expert or otherwise, should be permitted to give an opinion that another mentally and physically competent witness is telling the truth.”  Kuehl, 199 Wis.2d at 149, 545 N.W.2d at 842 (quoting Haseltine, 120 Wis.2d at 96, 352 N.W.2d at 676).  Because Tutlewski specifically cites the Haseltine rule, albeit as a rule of law under Kuehl, and because his appellate argument is conditioned on this very same principle of law, we reject the State’s waiver claim.[2]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment