Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

1. Completeness doctrine,

The supreme court’s Order 16-02A, 2017 WI 92, effective January 1, 2018, amends some rules of evidence that apply frequently in criminal cases: It clarifies the rule of completeness, § 901.07, by providing the rule is applicable to oral testimony as well as written testimony and to provide guidance on how and when to apply the rule. It revises… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Keith M. Bohannon, 2013 WI App 87; case activity Substitution of judge; “new” judge under § 971.20(5) When a case is reassigned from the original judge to a second judge and then reassigned again back to the first judge, the first judge is the “original” judge assigned to the case under § 971.20(4), not a “new”… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard D. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166 (recommended for publication); for Sugden: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; Sugden BiC; State Resp.; Reply Newly Discovered Evidence – Test – Generally ¶14      In order to be entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Sugden must prove by clear and convincing evidence… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Tyrone Booker, 2005 WI App 182 For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination focusing on inconsistencies in statements of the alleged victim permitted the State to read her entire first statement to the jury under the completeness doctrine; State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997), followed… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Gordon R. Anderson, Jr., 230 Wis.2d 121, 600 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999) For Anderson: Craig M. Kuhary Issue: Whether the trial court erred, under the doctrine of completeness, in refusing to admit certain portions of Anderson’s statement to a detective. Holding: The completeness doctrine trumps the hearsay rule, and the trial court… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997) For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda Issue: Whether the state was properly allowed to admit into evidence, under the rule of completeness, certain oral “challenged statements in their entirety, to show… Read More

{ 0 comments }