State v. Sandoval

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Novy

    2013 WI 23 (Wis. 2013)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ¶ 34 Wisconsin courts have come to refer to evidence that is proper for rebuttal as “bona fide rebuttal evidence.” See Lunde, 85 Wis.2d at 91, 270 N.W.2d 180;State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, ¶ 30, 318 Wis.2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291. Specifically, appellate courts have defined bona fide rebuttal evidence as that which (1) was not necessary to the State's (or plaintiff's) case-in-chief, and (2) which became necessary and appropriate when the defense made its case. See Lunde, 85 Wis.2d at 91–92, 270 N.W.2d 180. Bona fide rebuttal evidence is not determined by asking whether the evidence could have been admitted in the State's case-in-chief, but rather whether the evidence became necessary and appropriate because it controverts the defendant's case.

  2. State v. Thomas

    No. 2023AP174-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2024)

    ¶33 Counsel's "failure to pursue a meritless argument does not constitute deficient performance," State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI.App. 61, ¶34, 318 Wis.2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291, and counsel's failure to pursue a legal challenge does not prejudice the defense if the defendant cannot establish that the challenge would have succeeded, State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI.App. 258, ¶14, 268 Wis.2d 468, 673 N.W.2d 369. Moreover, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on a failure to challenge a correct circuit court ruling cannot establish either deficiency or prejudice.

  3. State v. Manns

    Appeal No. 2020AP173-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2021)

    ¶7 Counsel's "failure to pursue a meritless argument does not constitute deficient performance," see State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI.App. 61, ¶34, 318 Wis.2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291, and counsel's failure to pursue a legal challenge does not prejudice the defense if the defendant cannot establish that the challenge would have succeeded, see State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI.App. 258, ¶14, 268 Wis.2d 468, 673 N.W.2d 369.

  4. State v. Sodemann

    Appeal No. 2015AP26-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 11, 2015)

    We will not fault Munger for not pursuing a meritless action. See State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, ¶34, 318 Wis. 2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291. Sodemann has not shown that not seeking a proffer agreement was "outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance."

  5. State v. Sodemann

    2016 WI App. 1 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015)

    We will not fault Munger for not pursuing a meritless action. See State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, ¶ 34, 318 Wis.2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291. Sodemann has not shown that not seeking a proffer agreement was “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.”

  6. State v. Hanson

    Appeal No. 2010AP3149-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2012)

    Because the State did not commit a discovery violation, counsel was not deficient for failing to object on these grounds. See State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, ¶34, 318 Wis. 2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291 (counsel not deficient for failing to pursue meritless argument).

  7. State v. Flowers

    No. 2010AP1709-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2011)

    ¶ 26 However, "[o]nce a defendant presents a theory of defense, . . . the credibility of that theory becomes an issue in the case" subject to rebuttal. State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, ¶ 31, 318 Wis. 2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291. Admissible rebuttal evidence includes evidence that impeaches the defendant's testimony concerning his theory of defense. SeeState v.Konkol, 2002 WI App 174, ¶ 19, 256 Wis. 2d 725, 649 N.W.2d 300 (expert testimony admissible to rebut OWI defendant's "one drink" defense); Simpson v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 494, 514, 266 N.W.2d 270 (1978) (rebuttal evidence admissible to impeach defendant's claim that he never threatened to shoot victim).

  8. Melissa S. v. Edward T. K

    781 N.W.2d 550 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010)

    ¶ 19 We conclude that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in allowing the recording into evidence. Although we agree with Edward that the evidence was not relevant to Edward's good cause defense because the issue was not whether or not Melissa had good cause to prevent Edward from contacting Clayton, we conclude that the evidence was relevant rebuttal evidence because it called into doubt Edward's credibility after he testified that he did not contact Clayton for six months while he was incarcerated out of concern for Clayton's feelings; that he was actively involved in Clayton's education; and that he had a "frustrating moment" with Clayton in attempting to teach him his ABCs.See State v. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, ¶¶ 32-33, 318 Wis. 2d 126, 767 N.W.2d 291 (evidence may be introduced in rebuttal if it directly answers an issue introduced by defendant); Stan's Lumber, Inc. v. Fleming, 196 Wis. 2d 554, 573, 538 N.W.2d 849 (Ct. App. 1995) ("[W]e may independently review the record to determine whether additional reasons exist to support the court's exercise of discretion."). Edward testified about the ABCs event as follows: