Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

J. Writings/recordings, Ch. 910

State v. Robert A. Schoengarth, 2015AP1834-CR, 2/11/16, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered that police could not testify about Schoengarth’s performance on field sobriety tests. The judge apparently accepted Schoengarth’s argument that exclusion was appropriate because he had agreed to do… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Adamis Figueroa, 2013AP47-CR, District 1, 12/3/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the testimony of a police department employee about the content of two recorded conversations in Spanish between Figueroa and J.R., who alleged Figueroa had sexually assaulted her… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kurt Daniel Schmidt, 2010AP1104-CR, District 3, 11/16/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schmidt: Andrew John Laufers; Schmidt BiC; State Resp.; Reply Unlawful Use of Phone – Sufficiency of Evidence Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for violating § 947.012(1)(c). The second of two calls anonymously made by Schmidt in a matter of minutes… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Dionicia M., 2010 WI App 134; for Dionicia M.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD Madison Appellate Recorded Confessions The juvenile was in custody when she was directed to the locked back seat of a patrol car so that she could be transported back to school after being reported truant; and, because it was feasible under… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Evidence – Recording – Best Evidence Rule

State v. John D. Harris, 2009AP3140-CR, District 1, 8/17/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harris: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply Testimony of an investigator relating the contents of a recording wasn’t inadmissible under the best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

{ 0 comments }

State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski Issue/Holding: A surveillance tape that became unplayable was “destroyed” within the meaning of § 910.04(1), and its contents could be testified to by pre-destruction viewers: ¶68 We are satisfied that where a tape is damaged and unplayable, the proponent of the evidence… Read More

{ 0 comments }