Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Abuse of Discretion – Admission of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//September 9, 2021//

Abuse of Discretion – Admission of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//September 9, 2021//

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. George Steven Burch

Case No.: 2021 WI 68

Focus: Abuse of Discretion – Admission of Evidence

George Steven Burch appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree intentional homicide on the grounds that two pre-trial evidentiary motions were incorrectly denied. First, relying on the Fourth Amendment, Burch moved to suppress the admission of incriminating cell phone data. This data was obtained via an unrelated criminal investigation and kept in a police database. A different law enforcement agency investigating the homicide came upon this data and used it to connect Burch to the homicide. Burch argues that the initial download of the data exceeded the scope of his consent, the data was unlawfully retained, and the subsequent accessing of the data violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. We conclude that even if some constitutional defect attended either the initial download or subsequent accessing of the cell phone data, there was no law enforcement misconduct that would warrant exclusion of that data. Therefore, we conclude the circuit court correctly denied Burch’s motion to suppress that data.

Regarding the second pre-trial evidentiary motion, Burch asks us to reverse the circuit court’s discretionary decision to admit evidence from a Fitbit device allegedly worn by the victim’s boyfriend at the time of the homicide. This evidence, Burch maintains, should have been accompanied by expert testimony and was insufficiently authenticated. We agree with the State that the circuit court’s decision to admit this evidence was not an erroneous exercise of discretion. Burch’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed

Concur: REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring opinion. DALLET, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which KAROFSKY, J., joined and in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., joined except for footnote.

Dissent: ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. DALLET, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which KAROFSKY, J., joined and in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., joined except for footnote.

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests