State v. McAlister, 2014AP2561
| Decision Date | 17 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014AP2561,2014AP2561 |
| Citation | 911 N.W.2d 77,380 Wis.2d 684,2018 WI 34 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David MCALISTER, Sr., Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Robert R. Henak, Ellen Henak, and Henak Law Office, S.C., Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Robert R. Henak.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by Scott E. Rosenow, assistant attorney general, and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Scott E. Rosenow.
¶ 1 In January 2007, a jury convicted David McAlister, Sr. ("McAlister") of attempted armed robbery (threat of force), armed robbery (threat of force) and possession of a firearm by a felon for crimes that occurred in late 2004. At trial, the State presented testimony from Nathan Jefferson ("Jefferson") and Alphonso Waters ("Waters"). They testified that McAlister was their accomplice in the robberies.
¶ 2 In 2014, McAlister filed the Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion for a new trial that is now before us. He alleged that he had newly discovered evidence represented by the affidavits of three men who allege that Jefferson and Waters lied when they testified that McAlister was involved in the crimes for which he was convicted. The circuit court1 denied McAlister's motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the court of appeals affirmed.2
¶ 3 Our review focuses on whether McAlister has provided newly discovered evidence that is sufficient to require the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing. In so doing, we consider whether the affidavits McAlister submitted in support of his motion meet the requirements necessary to qualify as newly discovered evidence. We specifically examine whether the affidavits were cumulative evidence and whether they were uncorroborated evidence for which corroboration should be required.
¶ 4 We conclude that the affidavits were merely cumulative evidence because they were additional evidence of the same general character as was subject to proof at trial, i.e., that Jefferson and Waters lied when they implicated McAlister in order to achieve favorable plea bargains for themselves. We also conclude that the affidavits were insufficient to require the circuit court to hold a hearing on McAlister's motion for a new trial because they were supported by neither newly discovered corroborating evidence or circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Therefore, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied McAlister's motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing. State v. Avery, 2013 WI 13, ¶ 22, 345 Wis. 2d 407, 826 N.W.2d 60. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' affirmance of the circuit court.
¶ 5 The two crimes of which McAlister was convicted occurred in December 2004 in the City of Racine. On December 21, Nathan Jefferson and Monique McAlister ("Monique") attempted an armed robbery of the Catholic Community Credit Union (the "Credit Union").3 When the Credit Union's security alarms began to ring, Jefferson and Monique ran from the scene without any money. On December 28, Waters, Jefferson and Monique committed an armed robbery at Wisconsin Auto Title Loan ("Title Loan").
¶ 6 Police arrested Waters and Jefferson separately in March 2005 for robberies unrelated to the December 2004 robberies. Waters was questioned by Racine Police Investigator William Warmington regarding an armed robbery that occurred at an Open Pantry. Waters initially denied any knowledge or involvement, but after being confronted with video footage that Warmington indicated matched the description of one of the offenders, Waters admitted that he had been involved. Waters told Warmington that McAlister had planned the robbery at Title Loan and served as the getaway driver. Waters described in detail the location of and the interior of McAlister's home, including where the gun used in the Title Loan robbery could be found.
¶ 7 Upon his arrest, Jefferson told police that McAlister had planned each of the December robberies, served as the getaway driver and provided the gun he carried at the Credit Union. Based on the information obtained from Waters and Jefferson, police obtained a search warrant for McAlister's residence, where they found a .22-caliber handgun. McAlister, who is a convicted felon, was arrested.
¶ 8 At McAlister's trial, Waters testified on behalf of the State. He testified that shortly before December 28, 2004, McAlister had driven Waters to Title Loan, where he instructed Waters how to conduct the robbery. On December 28, McAlister picked up Waters in a gray Hyundai, a picture of which was received as Exhibit 4 and then picked up Monique and Jefferson.
¶ 9 After testifying that the gun the police took from McAlister's house, which had been marked as Exhibit 11, was "very familiar," Waters described the robbery itself. On cross-examination, defense counsel repeatedly attacked Waters' credibility. Defense counsel hammered on Waters' history of lying to police, calling attention to Waters' initial statements to police after his March 2005 arrest.
[Defense counsel refreshes Waters' recollection].
[Defense counsel refreshes Waters' recollection].
[Defense counsel refreshes Waters' recollection].
¶ 10 On re-cross, defense counsel suggested that because Waters now faced 154 years total incarceration, he had a very big incentive to implicate McAlister. Waters denied that he had any knowledge of a deal.
¶ 11 The following day, however, the court read this stipulation to the jury:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Talley v. Mustafa
-
State v. Taylor
..."A circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard to newly-discovered evidence." State v. McAlister , 2018 WI 34, ¶26, 380 Wis. 2d 684, 911 N.W.2d 77, reconsideration denied , 2018 WI 90, 383 Wis. 2d 146, 918 N.W.2d 77, and cert. denied , 139 ......
-
State v. Watkins
...a jury heard the newly-discovered evidence, it would have had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Id. , ¶¶32-33 ; State v. McAlister , 2018 WI 34, ¶¶31-32, 380 Wis. 2d 684, 911 N.W.2d 77. ¶43 The first step is completed when the defendant proves by clear and convincing evidence ......
-
State v. Carr
...for the initial false statement; and, (2) there are circumstantial guarantees of the trustworthiness of the recantation.’ " State v. McAlister , 2018 WI 34, ¶33, 380 Wis. 2d 684, 911 N.W.2d 77 (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. McCallum , 208 Wis. 2d 463, 478, 561 N.W.2d 707 (1997) ).¶34 ......
-
Weekly Case Digests September 14, 2020 September 18, 2020.
...We reject Lathon's arguments related to the alleged conspiracy to frame him based on controlling propositions in State v. McAlister, 2018 WI 34, 380 Wis. 2d 684, 911 N.W.2d 77. We reject his Bradybased argument because, even assuming such a failure to disclose, we conclude that he fails to ......
-
Postconviction Relief Newly Discovered Evidence.
...We reject Lathon's arguments related to the alleged conspiracy to frame him based on controlling propositions in State v. McAlister, 2018 WI 34, 380 Wis. 2d 684, 911 N.W.2d 77. We reject his Bradybased argument because, even assuming such a failure to disclose, we conclude that he fails to ......