On Point

State v. William M. Hart, 2011AP582, District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hart: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Although a (DOT-prepared) blood alcohol chart is admissible without expert testimony, State v. Hinz, 121 Wis. 2d 282, 284–85, 360 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1984), nonethless, “the proponent must lay the proper foundation for the evidence, and the burden does not shift to the opponent unless the proponent does so,” 

court of appeals publication orders, 8/30/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 116 State v. Andrew C. Holder

2011 WI App 118 State v. Dimitrius Anagnos

State v. Troy A. Keys, 2011AP550-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keys: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held insufficient to support scienter element of illegal possession of prescription drug,  § 450.11(7)(h). A pill container, container 2 Citalopram pills, were found on Keys’ coffee table The court rejects the State’s argument that the jury reasonably could have inferred Keys’

State v. Thomas J. Haiduk, 2011AP551-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haiduk: Gary S. Cirilli; case activity

In determining restitution for home improvement-related theft, the trial court failed to resolve whether the underlying contract was fixed-price or time-and-materials, therefore remand is necessary.

¶22      The court’s value-based $100,517.96 offset, and corresponding $35,877.33 restitution award, only includes an offset for the costof Haiduk’s materials,

State v. Cedrick M., 2010AP3011, District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cedrick M.: John J. Grau; case activity

Directed verdict as to grounds for termination held permissible, citing Door Cnty. DHFS v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), ¶¶10-11. The trial court was empowered to exercise this authority sua sponte, 

State v. Joseph Gayden, 2010AP2360-CR,District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gayden: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

The difference between Wis JI-Criminal 800 and 805 is that the latter limits the defendant’s intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to reasonable belief that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

State v. Stephen R. Jones, 2011AP864-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication; for Jones: Brian P. Dimmer; case activity)

Failure to move to strike juror wasn’t deficient performance. Juror’s public support of election of the presiding judge and the district attorney (who was not herself prosecuting this case) didn’t establish a significant relationship with either individual to establish “objective bias.” State v.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Inadequate Argumentation – Sanction 

Counsel’s woefully inadequate argumentation (“a single, underdeveloped legal argument” that, “(w)orse yet … was foreclosed by” prior precedent) not only dooms his client’s effort to resist deportation, notwithstanding palpable equities on her side, but has consequences for counsel himself:

… We are disturbed, however, by Baniassadi’s perfunctory performance. People in Wroblewska’s position face life-changing consequences from their immigration proceedings.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision; cert granted, 4/30/12

Padilla v. Kentucky: Retroactivity – Habeas Review 

The holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), that as in incident of effective representation, “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” is a “new rule”

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief in Wis COA No. 2008AP398-CR

Habeas – Duty to Preserve Apparent Exculpatory Evidence 

Pretrial destruction of car driven by McCarthy didn’t violate State’s duty to preserve exculpatory evidence, the court rejecting McCarthy’s argument that the destruction unconstitutionally impaired his affirmative defense of brake failure (against charge of causing great bodily harm by operating vehicle while under the influence,