In this OWI case, the State anticipated before trial what the theory of the defense would be and planned to rebut the theory by use of expert witness testimony. The issue we face on appeal, one of first impression in Wisconsin, is whether the State was required to disclose a known and anticipated rebuttal witness regardless of the statement in WIS. STAT. § 971.23(1)(d) (1999-2000)
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
STATE v. KONKOL
No. 01-2126-CR.
256 Wis.2d 725 (2002)
2002 WI App 174
649 N.W.2d 300
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Richard N. KONKOL, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted on briefs January 2, 2002.
Decided June 19, 2002.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of
Before Nettesheim, P.J., Brown and Snyder, JJ.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
