By: Derek Hawkins//April 12, 2016//
WI Court of Appeals – District II
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Esequiel Morales-Pedrosa
Case No.: 2015AP1072-CR
Officials: Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Hagedorn, JJ.
Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Esequiel Morales-Pedrosa appeals his judgment of conviction following a jury trial and the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion seeking a new trial. All fourteen counts of the judgment relate to Morales-Pedrosa sexually assaulting his teenage daughter, B.M., on multiple occasions. Morales-Pedrosa contends his trial counsel provided him ineffective assistance by failing to (1) object on the ground of impermissible “vouching” to testimony by a State expert witness that it is “commonly understood that approximately 90 percent of reported cases are true” and (2) object to “other acts” evidence that Morales-Pedrosa had sex with the victim’s mother—who, at the time of trial, had been with Morales-Pedrosa for nearly twenty years and married to him for approximately twelve years—when she was the same age as the victim. He also claims his right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to confront his accuser was violated when other witnesses testified regarding statements B.M. had previously made to them because such testimony was presented after B.M. had testified and was “excused.” We conclude trial counsel was not ineffective and Morales-Pedrosa’s confrontation right was not violated. We affirm
Recommended for Publication