Pate v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Roe v. State

    95 Wis. 2d 226 (Wis. 1980)   Cited 24 times

    From the foregoing it is evident that the case at bar does not resemble prior situations where we have exercised our discretionary power of reversal. See, Garcia v. State, 73 Wis.2d 651, 245 N.W.2d 654 (1976); Logan v. State, 43 Wis.2d 128, 168 N.W.2d 171 (1969); Pate v. State, 61 Wis.2d 25, 211 N.W.2d 495 (1973). III. DID THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY VIOLATE HIS OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE?

  2. Garcia v. State

    73 Wis. 2d 651 (Wis. 1976)   Cited 43 times
    Granting a new trial even where the evidence was not new, but was testimony from a friend who could identify the real suspect, but whom the defendant did not call as a witness to protect him

    We believe this case to be such an exception. Pate v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 25, 211 N.W.2d 495. The administration of justice is and should be a search for the truth.

  3. State v. Davis

    225 N.W.2d 505 (Wis. 1975)   Cited 18 times
    Stating that, pursuant to the new Wisconsin rule of evidence set forth at Wis. Stat. § 906.01, "every witness is competent to testify (with certain noted exceptions) and [] all former competency issues now are issues of credibility to be dealt with by the trier of fact"

    In order to grant a new trial in the interest of justice under sec. 251.09, Stats., this court must be convinced, viewing the record as a whole, that there has been a probable miscarriage of justice or that a new trial would lead to a different result. Rohl v. State (1974), 64 Wis.2d 443, 219 N.W.2d 385; Pate v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 25, 211 N.W.2d 495. A complete review of the record in this case fails to disclose a basis for believing that justice has miscarried or that a new trial would lead to a different result.

  4. Fells v. State

    65 Wis. 2d 525 (Wis. 1974)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that inconsistencies in victim's preliminary hearing testimony that her attacker had no mustache and had somewhat wavy or curly hair and her trial testimony that her assailant had a very thin mustache and that his hair was somewhat kinky and short were not so serious as to render her testimony patently incredible

    ". . . the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation."Id. at pages 199, 200. Wisconsin cases citing Biggers with approval: Jones v. State (1974), 63 Wis.2d 97, 108, 216 N.W.2d 224; Pate v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 25, 30, 211 N.W.2d 495 State v. Russell (1973), 60 Wis.2d 712, 721, 211 N.W.2d 637. Was there unnecessary suggestiveness connected with the photographic identification? Fells urges two instances of suggestiveness: (1) Fells' picture was the only one depicting anyone to be 5'11 1/2" to 6' 1" tall, and Mrs. Knowlton had previously told police she believed her attacker was about 6' in height; and (2) when Detective Toepfer handed the seven photographs to Mrs. Knowlton he said, "I believe the person would be in it."

  5. Jones v. State

    63 Wis. 2d 97 (Wis. 1974)   Cited 16 times
    In Jones v. State, 63 Wis.2d 97, 105, 216 N.W.2d 224, 228 (1974), our supreme court specifically held that the sixth amendment right to counsel does not attach until the time that a defendant is formally charged with a crime by warrant or complaint.

    "As indicated by our cases, the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." See also United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette (2d Cir. 1970), 428 F.2d 912; Sobel, Eye-Witness Identification (1972), pp. 64, 69, sec. 37. The Biggers pronouncement has been accepted in Pate v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 25, 30, and State v. Russell (1973), 60 Wis.2d 712, 721, 211 N.W.2d 637. We think the trial court committed no error in allowing the out-of-court identification in evidence and it follows that the in-court identification was likewise properly admitted.