On Point blog, page 19 of 25
Judicial Estoppel – Objection to PSI
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding:
¶6 Thexton next claims that the circuit court erred in considering the PSI from his prior conviction. On realizing that the PSI in this case had been prepared with extensive reference to the PSI from Thexton’s prior conviction, Thexton’s attorney objected to the circuit court that he could not adequately respond to it because he did not have access to the prior PSI.
Appellate Procedure: Respondent’s Waiver
State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2007 WI App 252, PFR filed 11/1/07; on remand from supreme court, and affirming, 2006 WI App 163
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶12 Generally, we do not apply waiver against a respondent who is seeking to uphold a trial court ruling. See State v. Holt,
Waiver of Issue: Jury Instruction – Failure to Object to Limiting Instruction
State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed
For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr.
Issue/Holding: Failure to object to the wording of a limiting instruction (limiting jury’s use of certain evidence to impeachment rather than substantive evidence of guilt) waived the right to challenge its efficacy, ¶¶34-36.
The court possesses discretionary authority to review and reverse in the interest of justice but “Cockrell does not contend that the real controversy was not tried because of the challenged jury instruction,” ¶36 n.
Waiver of Issue: Judicial Communications with Jury during deliberations – Defendant’s Right to Presence
State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, reversing 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel
Issue/Holding:
¶36 The parties agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court’s communications with the jury outside the presence of the defendant is error, violating the defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be present. We agree with the parties.…
¶63 (W)hatever the requirement for an accused’s waiver of the right to be present when a circuit court communicates with the jury,
Waiver – Closing Argument – Failure to Move for Mistrial
State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Failure to move for mistrial waived any objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument, ¶60. Nor do the comments rise to the level of plain error necessary to overcome waiver:
¶61 The State points out that, in denying Schutte’s motion for postconviction relief,
Appellate Procedure – Waiver of Argument: Confrontation – Crawford Issue, Trial Held Before Crawford Decided
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8
For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue/Holding: Failure to raise a Crawford objection didn’t amount to waiver: “However, Searcy could not have raised at trial a Confrontation Clause claim based on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), because his December 2002 trial preceded the March 2004 Crawford decision by well over a year.
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Generally, Exception for IAC Claim
State v. Juan F. Milanes, 2006 WI App 259, PFR filed 12/7/06
For Milanes: Joan M. Boyd
Issue/Holding:
¶13 A valid guilty or no contest plea waives all nonjurisdictional defenses to a conviction, including constitutional violations. See State v. Riekkoff, 112 Wis. 2d 119, 122-23, 332 N.W.2d 744 (1983). One exception to this rule is the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
Judicial Estoppel Bar to Argument, General Principles
Olson v. Darlington Mutual Ins., 2006 WI App 204
Issue/Holding:
¶4 … The required elements of judicial estoppel are:
First, the later position must be clearly inconsistent with the earlier position; second, the facts at issue should be the same in both cases; and finally, the party to be estopped must have convinced the first court to adopt its position—a litigant is not forever bound to a losing argument.
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Representation of Defendant by Prosecutor in Prior Case – Pretrial Motion to Disqualify, Timeliness
State v. Christopher M. Medina, 2006 WI App 76
For Medina: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue: Whether a motion to disqualify a prosecutor because of representation of defendant in a prior case, brought immediately before jury selection, may be deemed waived on timeliness grounds.
Holding:
¶24 We conclude the circuit court may, in the proper exercise of its discretion, deny a motion to disqualify a prosecutor under the substantial relationship standard if the motion is untimely.
Waiver – Closing Argument: Failure to Move for Mistrial
State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding: Failure to move for mistrial waives objection to closing argument, ¶28, citing State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, ¶86, 236 Wis.