820 N.W.2d 443
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Vollbrecht was convicted in 1989 of first‑degree murder and first‑degree sexual assault (with a weapon) based on circumstantial evidence that Hackl was killed and tied to a tree.
- In 2009, Vollbrecht moved for a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, based on newly discovered evidence pointing to a third party, Kim Brown.
- New evidence included posttrial disclosures about Brown (motive, confessions, related Nachreiner homicide), plus undisclosed notes, inmate statements, and DNA findings on a sleeping bag.
- The postconviction court held that the newly discovered evidence was discovered after conviction, Vollbrecht was not negligent in discovery, the evidence was material to identity, and it was not cumulative, and granted a new trial.
- The State appealed, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Denny and Sullivan to conclude the newly discovered evidence supports a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome.
- The case was remanded for trial consistent with the findings; the court also discussed Brady and laches but did not bar relief on the § 974.06 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vollbrecht satisfied the four criteria for newly discovered evidence. | Vollbrecht met discovery, diligence, materiality, and noncumulative requirements. | State contends diligence fails and evidence is inadmissible under Denny/Sullivan. | Yes; four criteria satisfied; new trial warranted. |
| Whether the Brown evidence meets Denny’s third-party‑culpability standards (opportunity, motive, direct connection). | Brown had opportunity and motive; direct connection via statements and Nachreiner link. | State disputes opportunity/motive/connection. | Yes; evidence valid for identity/motive under Denny. |
| Whether the evidence satisfies Sullivan/Scheidell “identity” framework and is not unduly prejudicial. | Evidence linked Brown to Hackl by distinctive, proximate similarities and corroborating inmate statements. | Admissions too attenuated or prejudicial. | Admissible under Sullivan/Scheidell; probative value outweighs prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Plude, 310 Wis. 2d 28 (2008 WI 58) (defines four criteria for newly discovered evidence and reasonable probability standard)
- State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (1998) (three-step analysis for other-acts evidence under identity theory)
- State v. Scheidell, 227 Wis. 2d 285 (1999) (identity exception to other-acts evidence; Sullivan framework applied)
- State v. Denny, 120 Wis. 2d 614 (Ct. App. 1984) (opportunity, motive, and direct connection required for third-party culpability)