State v. McDougle, 830 N.W.2d 243

McDougle charged with first-degree intentional homicide while armed and felon in possession of a firearm, relating to a 2007 bar shooting at Diamonds Pub in Milwaukee.
Trial evidence included eyewitnesses and others who saw McDougle with a gun during the shooting; McDougle argued someone else committed the murder and did not testify.
Assistant medical examiner Poulos testified about the autopsy proceedings; the actual autopsy was performed by Jentzen, who prepared the autopsy protocol and diagrams.
Poulos reviewed Jentzen's materials and formed his own independent conclusions, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with Jentzen's findings.
Trial counsel did not object to Poulos's testimony or to the admission of Jentzen's autopsy reports or protocol; the State introduced two prior felony convictions to prove felon-in-possession, with cautionary measures to limit prejudice.
Jury found McDougle guilty on both counts; postconviction motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel was denied; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for not objecting to autopsy testimony	McDougle argues Poulos's testimony and Jentzen's reports were improper because Poulos did not perform the autopsy and Bullcoming would bar hearsay testimony.	McDougle asserts counsel was deficient for failing to object to testimony and reports that improperly conveyed autopsy conclusions.	Not ineffective; prejudice not shown.
Confrontation concerns and prejudice analysis	Bullcoming requires confrontation with testimonial reports; admission violated Confrontation Clause.	Despite potential confrontation issues, defense shown prejudice was required and not satisfied.	Prejudice analysis required; no prejudice shown; no reversal.
Admission of two felonies for felon-in-possession charge	McDougle contends two felonies were unnecessarily prejudicial when one suffices.	State and counsel used careful framing (case numbers) to prove the element without undue prejudice; counsel did not render deficient performance.	Not ineffective; admission did not prejudice.
Postconviction evidentiary hearing standard	Allen/Machner require an evidentiary hearing if a prima facie ineffective-assistance claim is alleged.	Record supports denial of hearing under Allen; no prima facie showing of deficiency and prejudice.	Evidentiary hearing denied; conviction and order affirmed.

State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106 (Wis. Supreme Court 2004) (standard for postconviction evidentiary hearing)
State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (preserving testimony for ineffective assistance claim)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court 2011) (confrontation and expert testimony when the test is not performed by the testifying expert)
State v. Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99, 644 N.W.2d 919 (Wis. Supreme Court 2002) (confrontation and reliance on laboratory reports via supervisory testimony)
United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (admission of multiple prior felonies in felon-in-possession context and prejudice considerations)
State v. Mayo, 201 Wis. 2d 642, 734 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. Supreme Court 2007) (ineffective assistance framework)
State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85 (Wis. Supreme Court 2003) (harmless error and confrontation considerations)