State v. Cameron
885 N.W.2d 611
Wis. Ct. App.2016Background
- On April 29, 2012 Russell Setum was robbed and shot outside his mother’s home; he died and his mother (L.S.) was wounded. Nicholas Smith admitted involvement and implicated Robert Cameron; Smith testified pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Cameron was charged with armed robbery, first‑degree intentional homicide, attempted first‑degree intentional homicide, bail jumping, and felon in possession of a firearm; a jury convicted him on all counts.
- The State called Angela Rodriguez, an intelligence analyst, to explain cell‑phone service provider records and her mapping of phone locations; the parties stipulated to the authenticity of the provider records and defense did not object to Rodriguez’s expert status or testimony at trial.
- In closing, the prosecutor stated that Smith “came in and he told you the truth.” Defense counsel did not object to that comment.
- Cameron filed a postconviction motion arguing: (1) the court erred by not conducting a sua sponte Daubert gatekeeping hearing before admitting Rodriguez’s cell‑phone mapping testimony; (2) the prosecutor vouched for Smith in closing (plain error); (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object or retain a defense expert; and (4) the real controversy was not fully tried. The postconviction court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Cameron’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was required to conduct a sua sponte Daubert gatekeeping hearing for Rodriguez’s cell‑phone mapping testimony | Trial court should have independently assessed admissibility of expert cell‑site mapping despite no objection | Trial court need not perform a Daubert hearing absent timely objection; witness mainly explained stipulated provider records and mapping is admissible | No plain error; no sua sponte Daubert required where no objection and testimony explained provider records |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument impermissibly vouched for Smith (plain error) | Statement that Smith “told you the truth” improperly vouched and deprived Cameron of fair trial | Prosecutor’s credibility comment was based on evidence (cell‑phone records, videos, Smith’s admissions and plea terms) and was permissible argument from evidence | No plain error; comment was limited, based on the evidence, and did not usurp jury’s role |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not (a) objecting/raising Daubert or (b) objecting to prosecutor’s closing | Counsel deficient for failing to challenge mapping admissibility and for not objecting to vouching; prejudice likely changed outcome | Counsel’s performance was reasonable: mapping admissibility is well‑established, objections would likely fail; objection to closing would be futile because comments were permissible | No ineffective assistance — performance not deficient and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether the real controversy was not fully tried warranting discretionary new trial | Rodriguez’s allegedly inadmissible mapping was crucial and clouded the central issues | Mapping was admissible and corroborative; any limitations went to weight, not admissibility; evidence supported conviction | No exceptional circumstances shown; discretionary reversal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (establishes federal gatekeeping standard for expert scientific testimony)
- State v. Jorgensen, 310 Wis. 2d 138 (2008) (explains plain‑error doctrine and when appellate courts may notice unpreserved errors)
- State v. Davidson, 236 Wis. 2d 537 (2000) (sets due‑process standard for prosecutor misconduct and plain error review)
- State v. Love, 284 Wis. 2d 111 (2005) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)