 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Falk6/29/2000
when getting Laura ready to take her to the hospital on February 14, barely bending over to drop her into her car seat, which was on the floor, with the affiant, Candis Paul, averring that she saw Laura's face "and she [Laura] would have screamed if she [could]." There is little or no similarity between these acts and the type of conduct necessary to cause Laura's injuries.
. We next consider the evidence that is character evidence but not "other acts evidence," such as evidence that Shannon had a temper, had not wanted to be pregnant with Laura, and was not happy being a mother. The trial court stated it would not have admitted any of this evidence. Richard acknowledges that such evidence is not admissible under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(1)(c) against Shannon. But, he argues, this rule must bend to Richard's right to present a defense. Richard points to the court's statement in Scheidell that § 904.04(2) should not be applied as stringently to evidence presented by the defendant and argues that we should conclude the same with respect to character evidence prohibited under § 904.04(1)(c).
. We do not consider this to be a sufficient development of argument on such a complex point. There is a complete statutory prohibition on the admission of character evidence for a witness, yet Richard does not suggest what standard a court should apply to determine what character evidence is admissible against a witness to show the witness committed the crime. Scheidell does not provide guidance on this point, since that case concerned evidence of other acts, for which there is already in case law a well-defined analysis that applies to both third parties and defendants. Scheidell, 227 Wis. 2d at 294-95. Richard provides no Wisconsin authority for admitting character evidence that is not other acts evidence against a third party to prove that party committed the crime, and we are aware of none. The issue of admissibility of evidence against third parties in the context of the defendant's right to present a defense is a complex one, and the approaches of jurisdictions vary; and the distinct characteristics of the crime of child abuse no doubt adds additional considerations. We decline to develop Richard's argument for him, see State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 647, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992), and therefore do not further address the issue whether Richard is constitutionally entitled to present evidence against Shannon that is inadmissible under § 904.04(1)(c).
. Finally, we consider together the psychological evaluation of Shannon in the CHIPS file and the affidavit of Jeannie Ferguson, a social worker who is an experienced supervisor for child abuse intake in Dane County. According to her affidavit, Ferguson reviewed that psychological evaluation, a letter in the CHIPS file from a psychologist concerning Cody's visit with Richard, the closing argument at trial of both the prosecutor and the defense, and the affidavits of witnesses relating information about Shannon that Richard filed with the court post-conviction. Ferguson opined that Shannon would be "assessed as a very high risk of being abusive to a child in her care" based on the risk matrix she (Ferguson) uses in her work. She further opined that some of the conduct that we have mentioned as inadmissible correlate with a propensity to abuse children and some of the inadmissible character evidence indicates Shannon is a very high-risk caregiver.
. We accept as not clearly erroneous the trial court's finding that trial counsel consulted a psychologist and, based on that consultation, decided he could not "make the leap" from the character evidence he had to the propensity of Shannon to brutalize her baby. Based on this finding,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|