00-1821 State v. Gribble

Listen to this article

“It is not the prospective jurors’ ‘first introduction to the substantive factual and legal issues in a case.’ [Citation]. And, since the questions are not directed at eliciting information on prospective jurors’ backgrounds, or any other information that might reveal bias, there is no need for the defendant and counsel to be present in order to scrutinize gestures and attitudes to ensure impartiality.”

Where defendant placed two witnesses on his witness list but failed to disclose their written or recorded statements on the grounds that they were only rebuttal and impeachment witnesses, we agree with the trial court that such statements were required under Wis. Stat. sec. 971.23(2m)(am) and the court was, therefore, warranted in excluding that evidence.

“Because Gribble’s only argument on good cause is premised on his construction of the statute, and because we reject his construction as erroneous, it follows that Gribble did not have good cause. It is reasonable for a trial court to expect that a party will comply with its order unless or until the order is vacated, stayed, or reversed, and a party who chooses not to do that because of a disagreement with the order assumes the risk that a reviewing court will not agree with the party’s view of the law.”

We further agree with the trial court’s admission of certain “other acts” evidence and with its decision allowing a doctor to demonstrate with a doll the force that caused the infant’s head injuries.

Finally, although we agree with the trial court’s decision that the infant’s mother is entitled to restitution for counseling costs because she is a “victim” as defined by Wis. Stat. ch. 950, which governs the “Rights of Victims and Witnesses of Crimes,” and is a “family member” within the meaning of Wis. Stat. sec. 950.02(3). However, we disagree with the trial court that the victim’s aunt also qualifies as a “family member” under the statute. She, therefore, is not entitled to restitution for counseling.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Richland County, Leineweber, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Charles B. Vetzner, Madison

For Respondent: Wm. Andrew Sharp, Richland Center; Sandra L. Nowack, Madison