State v. Ramon Alvarado, Jr., 2021AP002057-CR

Background

Defendant Ramon Alvarado was charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety while using a dangerous weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm for allegedly driving up to P.S., shooting her in the knee, and fleeing in a beige/tan four-door car.
P.S. identified Alvarado from a photo array and in court; witnesses observed a tan/beige Ford Taurus leaving the scene; nine-millimeter casings at the scene matched ammunition found at Alvarado’s home.
Police arrested Alvarado at his brother Roberto’s home; officers located an empty gun case and nine-millimeter bullets; Elm testified Roberto said he had seen Alvarado in a brown/beige vehicle.
Pretrial, the court granted suppression of an un‑Mirandized statement; defense sought return of Alvarado’s phone/contacts for alibi purposes but the court denied release because trial was imminent and release could allow improper witness contact.
At trial Alvarado testified denying he owned or drove a beige car; the State recalled Officer Elm to impeach Alvarado with the earlier un‑Mirandized statement that he admitted having a beige car; the jury convicted on both counts and the court sentenced him to 13 years initial confinement and 8 years extended supervision.
On appeal Alvarado, pro se, raised multiple claims; the court addressed the main ones briefed: alleged prosecutorial misconduct/Brady violation re: phone contacts, waiver of suppression argument, admissibility of the un‑Mirandized statement as impeachment, and admission of Roberto’s out‑of‑court statement (Confrontation Clause).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alvarado)	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct / withholding phone contacts	State objected to releasing phone/contacts to prevent improper witness contact; not misconduct	Phone contacts were necessary for alibi and the State withheld them	No misconduct; issue rested on trial court decision; no Brady claim preserved; claim rejected
Waiver of argument on admissibility of un‑Mirandized statement	State did not waive right to use the statement to impeach after defendant testified inconsistently	State waived suppression argument at the pretrial hearing by stipulating to a Miranda violation	State did not waive impeachment right; may use un‑Mirandized statement to impeach when defendant testifies contrary
Admission of un‑Mirandized statement as prior inconsistent statement	Statement admissible for impeachment because defendant testified inconsistently; any error harmless	Admission violated Miranda and was plain error affecting fairness	Even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong corroborating evidence (ID, bullets, other witness descriptions)
Admission of Roberto’s statement (Confrontation Clause)	Roberto’s remark about a beige car was cumulative and harmless; not outcome-determinative	Admission was testimonial and violated Confrontation Clause	If error, harmless because evidence of beige car was cumulative and State’s case was strong

Key Cases Cited

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct review focuses on whether trial fairness was undermined)
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (appellate review considers whether misconduct contributed to a miscarriage of justice)
State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627 (1992) (appellate courts may decline to address inadequately briefed issues)
State v. Rejholec, 398 Wis. 2d 729 (2021) (un‑Mirandized statements may be used to impeach a defendant who testifies inconsistently)
State v. Mendoza, 96 Wis. 2d 106 (1980) (same rule on impeachment with statements obtained without Miranda warnings)
State v. Hunt, 360 Wis. 2d 576 (2014) (harmless error framework and factors for assessing effect of erroneous evidentiary rulings)
State v. Mattox, 373 Wis. 2d 122 (2017) (analysis for whether out‑of‑court statements are testimonial under Confrontation Clause)
State v. Lomax, 146 Wis. 2d 356 (1988) (procedures for postconviction hearings)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and admissibility of custodial statements)
State v. Rogers, 196 Wis. 2d 817 (1995) (failure to raise a specific argument at trial forfeits it on appeal)