Evidence — canine searches — opinion evidence — hearsay

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Evidence — canine searches — opinion evidence — hearsay

Chad J. Lurvey appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree intentional homicide. Lurvey argues that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) the trial court erroneously permitted the State to introduce testimony concerning a canine search despite the State’s failure to provide the drug dog’s training and performance records; (2) in violation of a pretrial order, the State’s witnesses testified that they believed Lurvey was guilty; and (3) the trial court erroneously permitted hearsay testimony that the victim was afraid of Lurvey. We affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2011AP2881-CR State v. Lurvey

Dist II, Waukesha County, Haughney, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hurley, Stephen P., Madison; Geis, James, Chicago; For Respondent: Moeller, Marguerite M., Madison; Schimel, Brad, Waukesha