Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Meeks

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided February 5, 2002No. 01-0263-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceFine, J.

¶ 63. {concurring). I agree with the result in this appeal but cannot join in the Majority Opinion for the reasons explained below.

¶ 64. The Majority opines that a trial court may consider the opinion of the lawyer representing a defendant at a competency hearing as to whether that defendant is competent. I disagree.

¶ 65. The general rule is that a lawyer may not testify as a witness in a proceeding at which he or she is representing one of the parties. SCR 20:3.7; see Peck v. Meda-Care Ambulance Corp., 156 Wis. 2d 662, 670-673, 457 N.W.2d 538, 542-543 (Ct. App. 1990).1 Thus, absent *406the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. State v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Peck v. Meda-Care Ambulance Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1990
  4. Borgwardt v. RedlinCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
  5. Younger v. Rosenow Paper & Supply Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API