Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

17. Videotapes of children

State v. J.L.B., 2016AP2358, District 4, 8/3/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The circuit court erred in finding that a six-year-old child’s videotaped interview was admissible under § 908.08 because nothing in the interview showed the child understood the importance of telling the truth and that there are negative consequences to untruthfulness. See §… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Beverly Reshall Holt, 2013AP2738-CR, 3/8/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The trial court did not err in admitting the audiovisual recording of the forensic interview of Caleb, one of the child victims, at Holt’s trial for child sexual assault. Holt was charged with two counts of first-degree child sexual assault for having intercourse… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Roy H. Beals, 2012AP1079-CR, District 2/1, 7/9/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity Ineffective assistance of counsel Trial counsel in a sexual assault prosecution was not ineffective for failing to object to portions of two different video statements of the child victim (one from 2007, the other from 2009) because the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kevin D. James, 2005 WI App 188 For James: Terry W. Rose Issue/Holding: The mere fact that § 908.08 imposes a mandatory protocol (videotape admitted into evidence first; child called to testify afterward) violates neither confrontation, ¶¶10-14, nor separation-of-powers, ¶¶15-25, doctrines.This statutory procedure allows the State to introduce a child’s videotaped statement, with the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Videotaped statement of Child, § 908.08(3)

State v. Robert L. Snider, 2003 WI App 172, PFR filed 8/22/03 For Snider: Timothy J. Gaskell Issue: Whether a child-victim’s videotaped statement must satisfy all the conditions in § 908.08, or may instead satisfy the residual exception. Holding: ¶12. We agree with the State that the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 908.08(7) permits the admission of a child’s… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2000 WI App 5, 232 Wis.2d 138, 606 N.W.2d 196 For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the state sufficiently showed that the child understood that false statements were punishable so as to justify admissibility of her videotaped interview under § 908.08(3). Holding: The admissibility statute, § 908.08(3), was satisfied… Read More

{ 0 comments }