State v. Miller
816 N.W.2d 331
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Miller was convicted of disorderly conduct with a dangerous weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, second-degree reckless endangerment, and obstructing an officer.
- The State played a redacted DVD of a pretrial detective interview in which the detective repeatedly told Miller he was lying and suggested he tell the truth.
- Miller objected to the DVD but the court allowed it to be shown to the jury to provide continuity of the interview.
- The court instructed that the detective’s statements were not evidence of truth but part of the interview’s context; jurors were told to judge credibility themselves.
- During closing, the prosecutor argued Drewry was truthful and Miller was a liar, which Miller did not object to at trial.
- On appeal, Miller challenges the admissibility of the video under Haseltine and argues plain error regarding the closing remarks; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haseltine applicability to unsworn statements | Miller argues Haseltine prohibits non-sworn credibility comments in the video. | State contends the detective’s unsworn pretrial remarks fall outside Haseltine and were necessary for context. | Haseltine not violated; unsworn pretrial statements allowed for continuity. |
| Plain error in closing arguments | Miller contends prosecutor’s statements about truthfulness were plain error. | State argues forfeiture, and no plain error given proper instructions and evidence tied commentary to facts. | No plain error; comments tied to evidence and curbed by jury instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92 (Ct. App. 1984) (prohibits witness credibility opinions about other witnesses in sworn testimony)
- State v. Smith, 170 Wis. 2d 701 (Ct. App. 1992) (context for limits on Haseltine-like statements in investigations)
- State v. Kleser, 328 Wis. 2d 42 (2010) (extends Haseltine to vouching by sworn witnesses for out-of-court statements)
- State v. Truax, 151 Wis. 2d 354 (Ct. App. 1989) (presumption jurors follow trial court instructions)
- State v. Mayo, 301 Wis. 2d 642 (2007) (limits and context for evaluating prosecutorial closing remarks)
- State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1 (Ct. App. 1998) (prosecutor may argue credibility as tied to evidence and proper instructions)