≡ Menu

Standing Objection Insufficient to Preserve “Haseltine” Error

State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38
For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate


¶11. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it was incumbent upon defense counsel to police Ortiz’s testimony. This area of the law — what a therapist can and cannot testify to — is complicated. As a result, we hold that when an expert witness is permitted to testify in a sexual assault case as to common characteristics of sexual assault victims, and to the consistency of those characteristics with the victims in the case at trial, and when the expert presents extensive testimony on those and related subjects, a standing objection is insufficient to preserve challenges to Haseltine violations.

(Note: State v. Tutlewski, 231 Wis. 2d 379, 384-85, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999), distinguished, ¶13 n. 3: “Tutlewski, however, does not control here, as the defendant’s claim in Tutlewski was based on the same objection made on appeal as was made in the trial court. Id. Delgado focuses his appeal argument on limited portions of Ortiz’s testimony that he claims violate Haseltine. However, at trial, he argued that Ortiz’s testimony should be excluded in toto because it would not assist the jury.”)


{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment