State v. Brent T. Novy, 827 N.W.2d 610

Novy was charged in Kenosha County with stalking, felony bail jumping, and harassment injunction violations arising from May 2008 to January 2009.
The State introduced fingerprint evidence from a L&M Meats payphone tied to a November 9, 2008 call; fingerprints matched Novy.
The circuit court excluded the fingerprint evidence in the State's case-in-chief due to a Wis. Stat. § 971.23 discovery violation (unprovided fingerprint cards).
Novy testified, and the State sought to use the fingerprint evidence in rebuttal; the court allowed rebuttal use as bona fide and necessary to counter Novy’s testimony.
Defense argued the discovery violation required exclusion of the fingerprint evidence throughout the trial; the court rejected this and permitted rebuttal testimony.
After closing arguments, Novy claimed a juror was sleeping; the circuit court did not find sleeping and denied a motion to strike the juror.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rebuttal admission of fingerprint evidence violated discovery sanctions	Novy: cannot use excluded physical evidence in rebuttal; sanctions bar its use entirely.	Novy: discipline allows bona fide rebuttal under § 971.23(l)(d) and caselaw; evidence should be admissible in rebuttal.	Yes, admissible; circuit court did not err in allowing rebuttal evidence.
Whether the allegedly sleeping juror violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury	Novy: sleeping juror prejudiced trial; merits striking juror.	State: no sleeping finding; no prejudice shown; no need to strike.	No reversible error; denial to strike upheld.

Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis.2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning and context)
Lunde v. State, 270 N.W.2d 180 (Wis. 1978) (rebuttal evidence not disclosed may be admitted as bona fide rebuttal)
Konkol v. State, 256 Wis.2d 725 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (rebuttal evidence admissibility when defense presents theory; disposition of discovery obligations)
Watson v. State, 175 N.W.2d 244 (Wis. 1970) (rebuttal evidence to impeach credibility prior to statute)
State v. Hampton (Hampton I), 201 Wis.2d 662 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) (requirements for remand to determine juror sleepiness)
State v. Hampton (Hampton II), 217 Wis.2d 614 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998) (prejudice inquiry in juror inattentiveness; curbs on automatic juror dismissal)
State v. Anson, 282 Wis.2d 629 (Wis. 2010) (judicial notice and circuit court credibility limits; not a witness)
State v. Sandoval, 318 Wis.2d 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (rebuttal witness testimony and discovery rules in context)
State v. Lehman, 108 Wis.2d 291 (Wis. 1982) (due process and juror inattentiveness considerations)