02-1647-CR State v. Furst

Listen to this article

Joel Furst appeals a judgment convicting him of two counts of homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle. He argues that:

(1) he was denied a fair trial because a prospective juror said during voir dire that it was not Furst’s first-offense and the trial court’s instruction did not adequately cure the resulting prejudice;

(2) the court prejudicially erred when it excluded Furst’s prior consistent statements that the victims’ headlights were not on;

(3) the court improperly exercised its discretion when it allowed testimony regarding a mid-trial inspection of the victims’ headlights without the prosecution establishing a chain of custody;

(4) the prosecutor’s closing argument deprived Furst of a fair trial by misrepresenting the defense; and

(5) the interest of justice requires a new trial because the mid-trial discovery and disclosure of the headlights prevented the case from being fully tried and undermined Furst’s rights to prepare a defense, to effective counsel and to knowingly enter a plea.

We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist III, Outagamie County, Gage, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Donald T. Lang, Madison

For Respondent: Jeffrey J. Kassel, Madison; Vincent R. Biskupic, Appleton